•.■!:.:■.::•■.'■■.:'- 
•-•■•... 

msfim 



mm 



■. M jiiHmtiM 



1 



§p« 




Hail ■' 

II 
Hi 
HI 



I 










mm 



'.■•"■i ; '.•■■•■ *- .■■'"•■■;;. • 
'■■■■•'•'■■■■■■•■■■.■■■• 

'^^'■'" •■' '"•;■■=■:.' 

'.■■•■:■■■».■'' ■■;'■'■■■■■ 

"'■<■••"'■'■■'>'.'■»•'■■*.. 
'■'■'•'■••'■'. 



■A 



■■•■■.■,■-:■■•■■■.;. 

HPRflH 

BNMH 

■ ' ■•■'■■ ■ 



•i LB i «■», MJtKJL 



win 

■Hi 






Ml 






■ 



'' ! ' ::; 'iffimi 



life 









Jibvatj at ftanpttf. 



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 






i 







« 



V 



*i 



N^ 



$ 1 

• J 



N ^ lisoj 






THE HISTORY 



THE PRESBYTERIAN CONTROVERSY, 



WITH 



EAfilY SKETCHES OF PRESBYTERIANISM. 






by a h; woods. 




[copy right secures.] 



LOUISVILLE! 

PRINTED BY N. H. WHITE, MARKET STREET 

1843* 






'£C I. 



^ 



/ mo 



CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER I. Early Sketches of Presbyterianism— 
Westminster Assembly. 

CHAPTER II. Union of Presbyterians and Congrega- 
tionalists-^Primitive and Liberal Policy of American 
Presbyterianisro, 

CHAPTER III. the Controversy a.nd Schism of 1741. 

CHAPTER IV. The Policy of the Presbyterian Church 
in the struggle for National Independence. 

CHAPTER V. Plan of Union of 1801. 

CHAPTER VL The Hopkinsian Controversy. 

CHAPTER VII. The Home Missionary Controversy- 
Old School Circular — New School Disavowal — Dfs. 
Green and Beman — Cincinnati Convention. 

CHAPTER VIII. Voluntary Societies nnd Ecclesius:;. 
cal Boards. 

CHAPTER IX. Assembly of 1831— Mr. Barnes' Ctm 

— Re-examination — Elective Affinity. 
CHAPTER X. The Act and Testimony. 
CHAPTER XL General Assembly of 1885. 



CHAPTER XII. The Foreign Mission Question— As- 
sembly of 1836. 

CHAPTER XIII. Mr. Barnes' Case again— Secret Cir- 
cular. 

CHAPTER XiV. Policy of the two Parties in reference 
to the Division of the Church, 

CHAPTER XV. Old School Convention of 1837. 

CHAPTER XVI. The General Assembly of 1837. 

CHAPTER XVII. Operation of the Excinding Acts- 
Arguments of the Parties for, and against Excision— 
The true character of the Excinded Synods — The 
Policy of the Reformers. 

CHAPTER XVIII. The Controversy about Doctrines. 
CHAPTER XIX. The Auburn Convention. 
CHAPTER XX. The Assembly of 1838— The Division 
of the Church — The tumult in the organization of 

the Assembly. 

CHAPTER XXL The Policy of the New Basis Assem- 
bly. 

CHAPTER XXII. The great reform Ordinance of 1838. 

CHAPTER XXIII. Unsuccessful efforts for an amica- 
ble adjustment. 

CHAPTER XXIV. Results of legal investigation. 



The opinion of the venerable Dr. Cleland, in regard to 
the merits of this work, is here inserted: 

The ''History of the Presbyterian Controversy," by the Rev. H. 
Woods, I have carefully read, and with no small interest and gratifica- 
tion. It embodies, in a succinct form, a large amount of matter found- 
ed on facts and evidences, contained in official and historical docu- 
ments, not to be successfully controverted. It will serve admirably as 
a book of reference for the present generation, as well as a little store- 
house of information for posterity, to whom it is especially commended. 
As for the style, it is familiar and agreeable, exhibiting a perspicuity 
and accuracy rarely to be found in similar modern productions, which 
makes the work at once both valuable and desirable of attainment, 
I cordially wish it a hearty patronage and extensive circulation. 

THOMAS CLELAKD^ 



PREFACE. 



The history of the controversy and schism of the 
Presbyterian Church embraces a very eventful period m 
the annals of the American Church, After the division, 
I was induced to undertake the task of writing a brief 
history of this whole matter. The work was accomplished 
with some labor and with great care. The statements 
made rest mainly upon documentary evidence ; and their 
correctness has not been controverted, though submitted to 
the public, through the "Presbyterian Sentinel,," during, 
the years 1841 and 1842. 

The reason why I originally undertook this work was- 
to gratify a very general desire to know what caused the 
division of the Presbyterian Church, and what separates 
the two parlies. This anxiety for information was not 
confined to the Presbyterian Church. The members of 
other churches, and the people of the world were anxious- 
to understand the subject. 

I thought it best to present briefly some early sketches 
of Presbyterianism, as introductory to the main object. 
And especially did I deem it necessary to present some 
sketches of primitive American Presbyterianism, seeing 
this question runs through all the controversy i Which 
party is the oldest, and which has departed most vndely 
from the principles upon which the American Presbyterian 
Church was founded ? The so called New School party 
professes to be as old as the so called Old School party* 



vm 

The New School also urge that they stand upon the foun- 
dation of primitive American Presbyter ianism f and that 
the measures that resulted in the dismemberment of the 
Church were the new or reform measures of the Old 
School. To settle questions of this nature, it was neces- 
sary to examine our early history, to see upon what 
principles the American Church was founded. 

The history of so important a period, in the annals of 
our Church, should not only be presented to those now 
living, but should also be handed down to coming genera- 
tions, that their curiosity may be gratified, and that they 
may learn wisdom from our sad experience. 

Where I have relied on historians so correct, in gene* 
ral, as Moshiem and Neal,I have not burdened the history 
by minute references. This was unnecessary, as what I 
have said of Presbyterianism prior to the organization of 
the Church in Ameiica, will not be controverted by any 
one. But as my statements in relation to the history of 
our Church in America may be subjected to the most rigid 
scrutiny, I have not only quoted good authorities, but have 
made my references sufficiently ample. 

I have only to add, that I have written these chapters 
as I trust, in the fear of God. I have written them with 
an expectation that they will be read, and with a hope 
that they will promote the advancement of truth and 
righteousness. 

THE AUTHOR- 

Glasgow, Ky. 1843. 



THE PRESBYTERIAN CONTROVERSY, 



CHAPTER I, 

EARLY SKETCHES OF PRESBYTERIANISM - WESTMIN- 
STER ASSEMBLY. 

The Church of Christ, before its alliance, in the fourth 
century, with the State under Constantine, flourished with- 
out the aid of civil power. Then the way seemed to be 
open, for a more extensive propagation of the gospel, than 
at any former time. But the advantages of this union were 
not real. Religion suffered by coming in contact with 
civil power and seculiar arrangements. The purity and 
simplicity of Christianity were corrupted ; forms and cere- 
monies were multiplied: a worldly policy controlled 
the ministers of religion-, and soon the kingdom of Christ 
became a kingdom of this world. 

From the fourth to the close of the fifteenth century, a 
long night of eleven cen-turies, the Church was in a deplor- 
able condition, if we except the VValdenses, who, during 
that long period, seemed to stand aloof from the establish- 
ment. We no more expect to find a correct system of 
Church Government among the Roman Catholics, than a 
correct system of faith* And we know so little of the 
history of the Waldenses, that we ought not to say what 
form of Church government they maintained. 

About the beginning of the sixteenth century, the 
li^ht of the reforrrjatipn began to dawn upon the world. 



10 

The Protestants all condemned the government of the Pa- 
pists as well as their doctrines. But they could not agree 
among themselves. A very respectable portion believed, 
that the primitive form of Church government was Pres- 
byterian. Among the advocates of this form of govern- 
ment was Calvin, who lived in the beginning of the six- 
teenth century. Moshiem says of him : "He maintained, 
that the church wa& to be governed, like the primitive 
Church, only by Presbyteries and Synods, that is, by as- 
semblies of oldersy composed both of the clergy and laity; 
and he left to a civil magistrate little more than the privi- 
lege of protecting and defending the Church, and providing 
for what related to its external exigencies and concerns. 
Thus this eminent reformer introduced into the Republic of 
Geneva, and endeavored to introduce into all the reform- 
ed churches, throughout Europe, that form of ecclesias- 
tical government, which is called Presbyterian, from ifa 
neither admitting the institution of bishops, nor any subor- 
dination among the clergy; and which is founded on this 
principle, that "all ministers of the gospel are, by the law 
of God, declared to be equal in rank and authority. " 

The Presbyterian form of church government, which 
was adopted by Calvin, became the model for the reform- 
ed churches in many countries of Europe. Frederick 111., 
elector of Palatine, in 1560, removed from their pastoral 
charge the Lutheran doctors, and filled their places with 
those who favored the doctrines and discipline of Calvin. 
This form of ecclesiastical government was embraced by 
his subjects and became the established institution. The 
Republic of Bremen adopted the same form of government. 
Other German Styles also regulated their faith and forms 
of government by that of Geneva. 

The French Protestants, though they differed among 
themselves, were generally under the influence of the Swiss 
divines. This is easily accounted for from their proximity 
to Geneva, and the efforts of those zealous and eminent 
men, Calvin, Farel and Beza. Thus, before the middle of 
the sixteenth century, the French Protestants entered into 
the bonds of fraternal communion with the church of 
Geneva. It is therefore clear, that the Protestants of 
France were Presbyterians. They were however, called 
by their enemies, Huguenots — a term of reproach. 



II 

The church of Scotland was founded by John Knox, & 
disciple of Calvin ; and from that time down to the present., 
Presbyterians have always been the most numerous. 

The Presbyterian form of government was more re- 
luctantly embraced in England than Scotland. Yet after- 
the death of Henry VIII. the doctrines of Calvin were 
embraced by the ministers and churches of England., 
And in the reign of Edward VI. Geneva was acknowledged 
as a sister church, and the doctrines of Calvin were 
adopted^ and rendered the public rule of faith. The form 
of government, however, then established was not Presby- 
terian. Yet the Presbyterians were a numerous body,, 
But they were divided among themselves. Some were dis- 
posed to observe the ritual established by Edward. But 
others were conscientiously opposed to that form of gov- 
ernment, and the rites and ceremonies enjoined,. To such 
persons the name of Puritans was given, on account of 
their contending for a more pure worship than the liturgy 
set up by Edward. 

A large portion of those called puritans were Presby- 
terians, yet among the Puritans were reckoned the Inde- 
pendents and Baptists. 

In the history of the English Church, it will be remem- 
bered, that the Presbyterians were called by different 
names — Puritans, Nonconformists, Dissenters — names 
common to all who oppose the discipline and forms of the 
established church. 

The Congregationalists, were called Independents. 
The same names were often applied to them as to Presbyte- 
rians; They agreed in articles of faith ; and the difference 
between the two bodies, in their views of church gQV.crn* - 
ment, was at times deemed so unimportant, that they liv- 
ed upon terms of correspondence and communion. 

In Ireland, the reformation was not general, Yet from 
an early period there were Presbyterians there, and large 
and respectable churches. 

At the commencement of the reformation in the Belgian 
Provinces, the people hesitated whether they would fash- 
ion their faith and discipline after Luther or Calvin. But 
after the middle of the sixteenth century, they publicly 
adopted the system of Calvin. 

Trie reputation of this great Reformer, and of the Col- 



12 

logo at Geneva, together with the indefatigable zeal of the 
Swiss in extending their system of doctrine and govern- 
ment, will readily account for the prevalence of this sys- 
tem, not only among the reformed churches of France, 
but those of Belgium and other States near to France. 

This system of faith and discipline found its way into 
Saxony, Poland, Prussia, Denmark, and nearly all the 
countries of Europe, and was extensively embraced at an 
early period c-f the reformation. 

Though the Presbyterian system was extensively em- 
braced, yet it is not to be inferred that there was a perfect 
uniformity. Moshiem says : "This universal conformity 
was, indeed, ardently desired by the Helvetic doctors ; but 
their desires, in this respect, were far from being accom- 
plished." . » 

On the intricate doctrine of Predestination — the prima- 
ry cause of the salvation of the elect — or the ruin of the 
reprobate, some adopted one view and some another. And 
it was so in reference to some other deep subjects in 
theology. 

There were differences in their form of discipline. Some 
were for a General Assembly, and others not. Some or- 
dained elders for life; and some were for one year. 
Some believed in the divine right of Presbytery and oth- 
ers not. Some were for the toleration of other sects, and 
others not. That period of the world, however, was 
strongly marked by bigotry and intolerance. And in an 
age of so much intolerance, we are almost surprised to 
learn, that, at an early period of the reformation, this 
maxim, having a tendency to promote concord, was pretty 
generally adopted, viz,: "That Jesus Christ has left upon 
record no express injunctions with respect to the external 
form of government that is to be observed in his church." 
But this maxim was not carried into effect. The world 
had been so long accustomed to a union of church and 
State, that the great mass seemed never to think of any 
thing but an establishment. And men of learning and 
piety, in every sect, seemed to think their party was the 
only true church. 

Upon a review of the feelings and policy of our ances- 
tors, the English, Scotch and Irish, we find much to admire, 
They wero the firm friends of the reformation, the bold 



13 

and courageous defenders of their liberties, the patrons of 
learning and of morals. But in their history, we find 
much to condemn. They were too rigid and uncompro- 
mising in things indifferent ; too intolerant towards others, 
and too fond of the aid of civil power. 

Indeed, the honor of the christian religion demands the 
concession long since made, that "all parties of chris- 
tians^ ichen in power ', have been guilty of persecution for 
conscience sake" and that "it is unsafe and dangerous 
to trust any sort of clergy with the sword." 

In England and Scotland, our Presbyterian ancestors, as 
well as others, were for one mode of worship, and one form 
of church government for the whole nation, to which all 
must conform. Perfect uniformity was attempted in Queen 
Elizabeth's reign ; uniformity too, in many respects, about 
things indifferent, according to the opinions of the party in 
power. The contest was then mainly about unity of 
apparel. Those who refused the gown, cap, &c. did 
so because they regarded them as the garments of Po- 
pery. But for this refusal, ministers were cut off from 
the church and imprisoned, and families ruined. The 
cries of the people for preachers reached the court. But 
it pleased the bishops to let the people do without the 
means of grace, unless their preachers would take the sur- 
plice and cap ! 

Upon this fatal rock of perfect uniformity the Church 
of England split. Neal says : "The rigorous pressing of 
this act was the occasion of all the mischiefs that befell 
the church for above eighty years/' 

In consequence of their persecutions, the Puritans, in 
the reign of Charles I., began to make rapid settlements 
in North America. One remarkable instance^— the cele- 
brated John Cotton, a popular preacher, cf meek and gen- 
tle disposition. He became a non-conformist, and omitted 
some of the ceremonies of the Church. He was informed 
against. He applied to the Earl of Dorset to befriend 
him. But the Earl sent him word, that, "if he had been 
guilty of drunkenness, uncleanness, or any such lesser 
fault, he could have got his pardon, but the sin of Puri- 
tanism and non-conformity is unpardonable, and therefore 
you must fly for your safety." Upon this he traveled to 
2 



14 

'London in disguise', and took passage for New England, 
where he spent the remainder of his life. 

In this reign, the Presbyterian Establishment of Scot- 
land was made to quake. During the reign of Elizabeth 
and James I., the Presbyterians in the North were free 
•from the troubles of their brethren in England. But when 
Charles I., in 183,7, attempted to force upon them the 
liturgy of -the English Establishment, jtfrey rallied under 
their Solemn 'League and Covenant, and finally triumphed 
over every attempt to subvert their system. Could we 
persuade ourselves that a union of Church and State is 
right, we would say that the Scotch deserve the greatest 
praise for their valor and conscientiousness in battling for 
their Establishment. Yet, during the reign of Charles I., 
the sitting of the long parliament, the protectorate of 
Cromwell, and the civil wars, the conduct -of the ..Scotch 
Presbyterians was, in many cases, highly reprehensible. 
In some things they were as much to blame as .those who 
desired to oppress them. B.shop Burnet says.: ." that the 
King and the Scots desired uniformity in church govern- 
ment, but with different views—the King was for bringing 
thsm to the English standard ; whereas," the Scots intend- 
ed to bring the English Jo theirs.'' And Neal says, the 
Scots insisted that "there should be uniformity between the 
two nations. 19 

fn the contest between diaries J. and his Parliament, 
the Scotch and English Presbyterians, and the Independ- 
ents generally sided with the latter. 

In 1643, the Westminster Assembly met, according to 
an ordinance of the Lords and Commons, in parliaments 
This was a convocation, neither according to Episcopacy 
or Presbytery. The parliament chose all the members, 
with a view to have: their advice in settling the doctrine 
and government of the Church of England. They ap- 
pointed in England thirty laymen — ten lords and twenty 
movers— and one hundred And twenty-one divines.; 
from Scotland, six laymen and five divines. More than 
onn hundred met. Some were Episcopalians, some Eng- 
lish Presbyterians, some Scotch Presbyterians, some Eras- 
tiana, and" some .Independents. Few Episcopalians ap- 
peared, and soon withdrew, because of lay representation, 

j the number of men of puritanical stamp, and. other 



■ 15 

reasons. Baxter says* that they who composed the As-' 
sembly "were men of eminent learning; godliness, minis-' 
terial abilities, and fidelity. ° 

The Assembly, after a long and animated debating, 
went through their work. They agreed upon a Confession 
of Faith and Form of Government, and signed the Solemn* 
League and Covenant, sent there from Scotland, with 
some slight alterations. The Solemn League and Cove- 
nant, though a short document, exerted a powerful influ- 
ence, and- proved eventually for England and for Presby- 
te nan ism , as impoHtijnsiV\\Rs intolerant. It consisted 
jf six-' articles, to the second of*' which there was the 
greatest objection, it reads as follows: u That we shalU 
in like manner, without respect of persons, endeavor the 
extirpation of popery, prelacy, (that is, church government 
by archbishops, bishops their chancellors and commissaries,* 
deans, deans and chapters, archdeacons and all other eccle- 
siastical officers depending on that hierarchy) superstition, 
heresy, schism, profaueness, and whatever shall be found 
to be contrary to sound doctrine, and the power of godli- 
ness-; lest we partnke in other men's sins, and thereby be 
in danger to receive of" their plagues; and that the Lord 
may be one, and his nam p one, in the three kingdoms." 

This document was subscribed, not only by the West- 
minister Assembly, but by the parliament. The Commit- 
tee of States in Scotland, ordered- it to be subscribed in 
that kingdom,.- on penalty of. the confiscation of goods*, 
and rents- and other punishments. All the lords of the 
Council were required to sign it, and those who did not, 
were declared enemies- to religion* aid to their king and 
country. Orders were issued te seize their goods- and ap- 
prehend their persons, upon which they fled into England, 
In England, all persons over trie age of eighteen were or- 
dered to subscribe it., 

To the League and Covenant,, there were many and 
weighty objections. It was regarded as a religious and civil 
test act, subjecting any one- who did not sign it, to be pro- 
ceeded against as a "malignant" — an enemy to religion 
and to his country. It was also opposed by some, because 
it bound them to acts of persecution — "/Ae extirpation " 
of tho^e who might be called heretics or schismatics. 
From the doeumenUve can easily sec* that Episcopalians 



16 

Independents and others would not be very hearty in sub- 
scribing it. But it was subscribed by multitudes of all 
•needs and classes. Some took the Covenant, because 
they thought the Protestant religion in danger; some, in 
obedience to the parliament; some because they wanted 
the assistance of Scotland, which was to be had on no 
oilier terms, and some to avoid danger. 

It was not, however, to be supposed, that in so large an 
Assembly as that of Westminister, there was a perfect 
uniformity of views on ail points. Neal says: "It is not 
to be wondered, that so many parties, with different views, 
should entangle the proceedings of this venerable body, 
iind protract the intended union with the Scots. " 

There was some jarring when they came to sign the 
League and Covenant. Dr. Featly objected to one article. 
Dr. Burges objected to several, and was persuaded to sub- 
scribe, after he had been suspended. The Scotch were 
for abjuring episcopacy as unlawful, but the English di- 
vines were against it. The English Commissioners were 
for a cicil league, but the Scotch would have a religious 
one, to which Bishop Burnet says, "the English were 
obliged to yield, taking care at the same time to leave 
a door open for a latitude of interpretation." Thus, iu 
the first article, they bound themselves to defend and pre- 
serve the reformation of religion, "in doctrine, worship, 
discipline and government according to the word of God, 
and the example of the best reformed churches." Here 
was a latitude, that would suit all. The Episcopalian 
would have it "according to the word of God." But the 
Presbyterian would go a little farther, and have it also ac- 
cording to "the example of the best reformed churches." 
Thus, says Neal, "the wise men on both sides endeavor- 
ed to outwit ench other in wording the articles." 

It would indeed be something strange, if there were not 
different views of doctrine and church government, among 
men who belonged to different sects — Scotch, English 
Presbyterians, Erastians, and Independents. The majori- 
ty, at first, wore in favor of such an episcopacy as they 
supposed existed in the early ages of the church. Put 
for ihe sake of the alliance with the Scotch they declared 
for the Presbyteriai form. 

On the mode of baotism, there was at first some d.f- 



it 

ference. One half were for excluding dipping. The 
other half, though they believed that affusion was the 
lawful mode, were unwilling to vote that dipping was not 
a valid baptism. 

The Directory, in reference to prayer, was not well re* 
-eived by the Independents. Mr. Fuller says: "the inde- 
pendents in the Assembly,- were hardly persuaded to con- 
sent to it, for ftar-of infringing the liberty of prayer, yet 
being admitted to qualify some things in the preface, they 
complied." 

On the subject of the keys and oj en communion, there 
was difference of opinion. Neal sa\s; "The Presbyterians 
were for giving the power of the keys into the hands of 
the ministers and elders, as the Independents were, to the 
whole brotherhood ; but L ; ghtfoot, Selden, Coleman and 
others, were for an open communion to whom the parli- 
ament were most inclinable." These latter were Eras* 
tians. 

There were other points about which the members of 
the x^ssembly differed. Some objected to certain expres- 
sions relative to reprobation, the imputation of Christ^ 
obedience, &c. But they at last agreed upon the Confes- 
sion of Faith and Book of Discipline, as the best thing 
they could get, though all were not pleased with them. 
And that Confession, as-si nee modified, certainly ranks, in 
the opinion of good judges, among the best systems of 
diviuity ever published. Yet r from the history of those 
times, we learn that there was no small degree of dissatis- 
faction about the Confession of Faith, Neal, speaking of 
the Baptists, who were not represented in the Assembly, 
says: "These, joining with the Independents in the point 
of discipline and toleration* made them the more considera- 
ble, and encouraged their opposition to the Presbyterians, 
who were for establishing their own discipline,, without re- 
gard to such as differed from them." In this,- the Presbyte-' 
rians grealy erred, and manifested an intolerant spirit. Even 
the good Mr. Baxter avowed that, "he abhorred unlimit- 
ed liberty, or toleration of all." 

The great question about the divine right of Presbytery 

was warmly debated during the sitting of the Assembly, 

as well as afterwards. Mr. Coleman was bold against 

this doctrine. He declaimed against it, not only in the 

2* 



Assembly, but in the pulpit, "apprehending Presbytery 
would prove as arbitrary and tyrannical as prelacy, if it 
came in on the foot of a divine cluim." 

Here also the Independents erred: for in opposing the 
divine rigid of Presbytery, they advocated "a divine 
right of their own scheme." But, in the Assembly, the 
Presbyterians carried their point, by a large majority vot- 
ing for the divine right. But the Independents entered 
their dissent in writing, and complained to the world "of 
the unkind usage they met with in the Assembly: that the 
papers they offered were not read ; that they were not al- 
lowed lo state their own questions," &c. 

But when the matter came before the House of Com- 
mons, the Independents were joined by the Era strand 
When the vote was there taken, the Commons voted 
against the divine right. Neal says, that "the disappoint- 
ment of the Scotch Commissioners and their friends, at 
this vote in parliament, is not to be expressed." 

Indeed, the entire book, as it came from the Assembly, 
and has been published to the world, never was approved 
by the English parliament. The parliament, however, 
made some concessions to the majority of the Assembly, 
but with such provisios, that it was evident they did not 
Intend to part with the sw&rd, or subject the civil powers 
to the church, which was very offensive to the Scotch and 
their adherents. 

But when Parliament had now established the Presbyte- 
rial form of government, no one party of Christians was 
satisfied. The Episcopalians and Independents were ex- 
cluded ; and because the parliament would not come fully 
up to the Scotch notions of divine right, they were not 
pleased. And yet it is clear that what was done, was in 
a great degree to please the Scotch Commissioners. Bish- 
( p Rennet observes, that "the settling Presbytery was 
supported by the fear and love of the Scotch army, and 
that when they were gone home, it was better managed by 
the English army, who were for independency and a prin- 
ciple of toleration." In this divided state of affairs in 
England, the Scotch felt that they held the balance of pow- 
er, and they seemed determined to impose their form of 
government upon the English. 

Here was the grand error of our Scotch and English 



19 

Presbyterian ancestors. They were not satisfied with any 
thing short of covenant uniformity and the divine right 
of Presbytery. Of this Mr. Baxter, who was a Presby- 
terian, was in some degree sensible. He says, "that the 
Prestbyerian ministers were so little sensible of their own 
infirmities, that they would not agree to tolerate tho?e 
who were not only tolerable, but worthy instruments, and 
members in the church, prudent men, who were for union 
in things necessary, for liberty in things unnecessary, 
and for charity in all." 

Though the Independents were the advocates of tolera- 
tion, yet their foundation was not very generous. They 
plead only for the toleration of themselves, the Baptists, 
and such as agreed in the fundamentals of religion. 

Though no two denominations were more alike than 
the Presbyterians and Independents, yet in the latter part 
of the reign of Charles I., during the revolution, and pro- 
tectorate of Cromwell, they had bitter strifes,, growing 
out of the doings of the Westminister Assembly, attempts 
at uniformity, &c. Sectarian jealousy and rivalry rose 
high in the days of Cromwell, who inclined to inde- 
pendency. Therefore, the rigid Presbyterians were not 
satisfied with his government. And when he was suc- 
ceeded by his son Richard, seeing no prospect of restor- 
ing the Covenant or obtaining uniformity, they united with 
the Royalists and Episcopalians to restore Charles II. which 
took place in 1660. In this the Scotch united, and sent 
the Earls of Crawford and Landerdale to Holland, "humbly 
to put his majesty in mind, that the Kirk of Scotland ex- 
pected protection upon the footing of the Presbyterian 
establishment, without indulgence to sectaries." The pro- 
fligate Charles II. agreed with the Presbyterians, to come 
to the throne upon their terms. Like promises he made 
to the Episcopalians and the Catholics. Thus, says Neal, 
"the credulous Presbyterians were gradually drawn into 
the snare, and made to believe, that Presbytery was to be 
the established government of the Church of England, 
under King Charles II." In uniting with the Royalists 
and Episcopalians, for the restoration of Charles, the most 
solemn promises were made them. But, says the histo- 
rian just quoted, "the reader will judge hereafter, who 
were most to blame? the Episcopal party, for breaking 



20 

through so many solemn vows and protestations; or the 
Presbyterians, for bringing in the king without a previous 
treaty, and trusting a set of men, whom they knew to be 
their implacable enemies. 1 can think of no decent eX* 
cuse for the former; and the best apology that can be 
made for the latter is, that most of them lived long enough 
to see their error and heartily repent it." 

With the restoration of Charles II., the old constitution 
was restored, together with the Episcopal Church. By 
establishing Episcopacy, the king expected the great body 
of the nation, Presbyterians, Independents, &c. would be 
dissatisfied ;- thai they would demand a general toleration,- 
and thus he would open the door for the Roman Catholics* 
But soon the Presbyterian ministers were made to suffer. 
Though men of gravity, and far advanced in years, they 
were rallied in the pulpits under the opprobrious names of 
schismatics 'and fanatics ; exposed to insults ; assaulted 
by mobs, and forced to go in disguise. The old penal 
laws for non-conformity were executed with severity. 

The hardships and poverty attending non-conformity, 
tempted some few to conform contrary to their judgment ; 
but the great body of dissenters stood firm to their princi- 
ples. 

The sufferings of the non-conformists were great. Ma- 
ny were sent to prison and to death. In the history of 
the Puritans, it is estimated, that between the restoration 
and the revolution, seventy thousand families were ruined, 
and that eight thousand persons suffered death upon the 
scaffold and in prison. This happened in the short reign 
of Charles II. It is also stated, that "besides those who 
suffered in their own country, great numbers retired to the 
plantations of New England, Pennsylvania, and other 
parts of America." 

Such treatment of the dissenters, and from those whom 
they had helped into power, was unaccountable. In re- 
ference to it, the Earl of Castlemain, a Roman Catholic, 
said : " 'Twas never known that Rome persecuted, as the 
bishops do, those who adhere to the same faith with them- 
selves, and established an inquisition against the professors 
of the strictest piety among themselves." 

But when, in the reign of James II., the successor of 
Charles II., the king endeavored to establish the Roman 



21 

Catholic religion, and thus involved himself in a war with 
the established church, the dissenters were true to their 
principles. The king offered them all manner of encour- 
agement, if they would aid him. The clergy of the es- 
tablishment, also, entreated them for assistance against 
ihe king and the Catholic religion. The dissenters, in de- 
ciding, shewed a magnanimous spirit. Though they had^ 
till that time, been inhumanly persecuted by the bishop's* 
yet they knew, that they and the churchmen agreed sub* 
stantially in matters of faith, and they were unwilling that 
the great cause of the reformation should perish for lack 
of their aid. They, therefore, cordially joined the church 
party, in consequence of which the wonderful revolution 
was effected, at little cost of treasure or blood. King 
James abdicated the throne upon which William and Ma- 
ry were placed in 1689. 

Though the bishop had made the fairest and most solemn 
promises to the dissenters, for their assistance, yet these 
promises were soon forgotten. On this subject Neal sayfe : 
"Such was the ungrateful return that these stubborn 
churchmen made to those who had assisted them in their 
distress! For it aught to stand upon record, that the 
Church of England had been twice rescued from the most 
imminent danger, by men for whose satisfaction they 
would not move a pin, nor abate a ceremony : first in the 
year 1660, when the Presbyterians restored the King and 
Constitution, without making any terms for themselves ; 
and now again at the revolution, when the church fled for 
succor to a Presbyterian Prince, and was delivered by an 
army of fourteen thousand Hollanders, of the same prin- 
pies with the English Dissenters.'' 

This highly honorable conduct of the dissenters, was 
not forgotten by the lords in Parliament in 1702, when 
Queen Anne came to the throne. In a conference with 
the house of Commons, on the Occasional Bill, they say : 
"That in the last and greatest danger the church was ex- 
posed to, the dissenters joined with her, with all imagina- 
ble zeal and sincerity, against the Papists, their common 
enemies, showing no prejudice to the church/' 

During the reign of King William, the high church 
party were displeased that toleiation was granted to the 
dissenters. Thus says Neal: "The tories and high 



23 

-lurch clergy enjoyed the advantages of this glorious rev- 
olution, white they acted a most- ungrateful part towards 
their deliverer, and a most unkind and ungenerous one tc 
their dissenting brethren. " 

While William lived, he defended the dissenters; but 
when Anne came to the throne, the high church party jm> 
mediately brought in the Occasional BUI to cramp the tol- 
eration of the dissenters,- which did not obtain the.rqyal 
assent till the year 1711. 

But when George I. came to the throne in 17M; he was 
satisfied,- that the oppressions, of which the dissenters 
complained, were brought upon them for'Hheir steady ad-- 
herence to the Protestant succession in his illustrious 
house." And in five years, he procured the repeal of the 
acts against toleration, since which time, no important 
change has taken place in the statutes of England, on the 
subject of religion. The Episcopal church is the estab- 
lished religion, but others are tolerated. 

In Scotland, since the days of Knox, Presbyterianism 
has generally stood on a firm basis.- lt"has been,,and:is 
now the established ! religion. The Scotch hare always 
shown an unwavering attachment to their discipline, and a 
desire to have their system prevail. And had they been 
less eager on this point, and more tolerant towards others, 
their influence would have been more extensively felt. 
They erred in imposing Presbyterianism upon the Eng- 
lish. And when they, had procured their establishment 
in England, they opposed the toleration of others. The 
parliament, was willing- to grant toleration to the Inde- 
pendents. But the 'rigid Presbyterians opposed and pre- 
vented it. Thus they alienated this body,, and. eventually 
defeated their own cause; so that the Presbyterians in 
England, soon became comparatively a small body. And,, 
as-to-the Scotch, we would look with admiration upon 
their church,.wore it not for their attachment to the Solemn. 
League and Covenant, and the divine right of" Presbytery, 
and their alliance with the civil power. 

The Presbyterians or Huguenots of France,. never had 
the aid of civil power, but were often sorely persecuted. 
They generally enjoyed some toleration, till the horrible 
St. Bartholomew massacre, in 1572, which resulted in the 
destruction of at least thirty thousand Protestants, in. 



23 

159S^in>tbe reign of Henry IV. their civil rights were se- 
cured by the edict of Nantes* During the reign of Lou- 
i§ fkfV.ithey were o^gain .greatly persecuted ; and by the 
revocation of the edict of Nantes, in .1685, .many thou- 
sands were forced to make their escape to other pai'ts ©f 
Europe, and to America. Since which time, the Hugue- 
nots in France have lived the subjects of alarm and per- 
secution, never enjoying a full and free toleration, except 
during the great revolution under Napoleon. 

When we look back, two or three centuries ago, to the 
history of the church, in any of Ats parts,, we see that .the 
principles of a general toleration and equal rights were 
not understood. Nor are these principles, at the present 
,day, embraced and cherished, except in .the United States. 
And when we wonder at the persecutions of former timers 
v we should recollect that they were times of violence and 
intolerance. Rudeness often characterized the persecuted 
as well as the persecutor. Take one specimen two hun- 
dred years ago. Mr. Prynne wrote a book, in which he 
uses such language as this, in speaking of the ladies at 
court, and of the nobility,: "Our English ladies, shorn 
and frizzled madams, have lost their modesty ; that the 
devil is only honored by dancing" dze. For this book he 
was prosecuted. The Earl of Dorset, in a speech against 
him. says : "I will never set him at liberty, no more than 
a plagued man, or a mad dog. He is fit to live in dens 
with such beasts of prey as wolves and tigers, like him- 
self; therefore I condemn him to perpetual imprisonment; 
and for corporeal punishment, I would have him branded 
in the forehead, slit in the noseband have his ears chopt 
off." And this was only a part. of the penalty inflicted. 
His imprisonment, however, was not perpetual. Surely 
these were times of violence, when a savage barbarism 
was vastly more popular than in our day. And, it being 
an age of intolerance, conscientious men, no doubt, thought 
they were doing God service, by persecuting those who 
differed from them. 

But in the United States^all ^ects now profess to have 
abandoned their persecuting principles. When they sat- 
isfy the, public mind that this is so, the past ought to be 
forgotten and forgiven. In other parts of the world, there 
'flie yet church establishments. And whenever, at XhiB 



24 

day, a church sits securely in the lap of civil power, there 
are still to be found the principles of intolerance. And 
wherever a. church claims to be independent of, or superi- 
or to the civil power, there persecution is to be found. 

But the Episcopalians^ in the United States, have no ec- 
clesiastical connection wiih the Episcopal establishment 
of England, and they profess to be the friends of equal 
rights. The Presbyterians, in the United States, have no 
ecclesiastical connection with the Presbyterian establish- 
ment of Scotland, and they profess to have abandoned 
those arbitrary and intolerant principles, to which the 
Scotch have generally adhered. Such professions are 
right, and worthy of confidence, whilst strengthened by a 
corresponding practice. 

However, where there is no church establishment, 
there is one feature in some sects, that is calculated to 
sow deeply and widely the seeds of intolerance, viz.: — the 
divine right — a conceit that, notwithstanding according 
to the civil law £hey are on an equality with other sects, 
yet, according to divine law, they are the church ; others 
are out of the church, heretics and schismatics, because 
they are not of their party. Of one thing, however, we 
may feel confident, that wherever a sect has no connection 
with civil power, and abandons her divine right notions, 
such a sect is not to be feared. 

From these brief sketches of Presbyterianism, the rea- 
der will perceive, that Presbyterians do not claim to have 
been an infallible church. U ought, however, to be re- 
membered, that Presbyterianism in the New World, is 
not what it is in the Old World. 

It is our purpose to show, in these sketches, that 
ih# unlovely features of Scotch Presbyterianism — Church 
and State ; Solemn League and Covenant ; Divine Right, 
fyc. — have never pertained to American Presbyterianism. 
Where those brethren will land, who have commenced a 
sort of reirogade reformation, is for future development. 
They have nothing to say in favor of the tolerant and li- 
beral principles upon which American Presbyterianism 
was founded, but seem to have a strange "affinity" for the 
Scotch system, as the only perfect model of Presbyterian- 
ism. But of this hereafter. 



r 25 ) 



CHAPTER II. 



UNION OF PRESBYTERIANS AND CONGREGATIONAL- 
ISTS-PR1MITIVE AND LIBERAL POLICY OF AMERI- 
CAN PRESBYTERIANISM. 



In the history of the Presbyterian church, it is neces- 
sary to notice its connection with the Independents or Con- 
gregationaliats- The two bodies, in England and Amer- 
ica, have generally adopted the same Confesssion of 
Faith; and when their jealousies, alienations and strifes 
about other matters were healed, they have been ready to 
adopt plans of correspondence and union- 

The first effort at union in England, worthy of notice, 
was about the year 1653. At first the "articles of con- 
cord" were drawn up so as to embrace Episcopalians. 
But the associations were attended mostly by the Congre- 
gationalism and Presbyterians. We find the following- 
statement in NeaPs history : "The chief of- the Presbyte- 
rian and independent divines, who were weary of divis- 
ions, and willing to strengthen each others hands, united in 
these assemblies, though the exasperated prelatists,-the 
more rigid Presbyterians and severer sort of Independents, 
kept at a distance* But many remarkable advantages at- 
tended these associations ; they opened and preserved a 
friendly correspondence among the ministers," &c. 

But towards the close of the seventeenth century, the 
two bodies effected a firmer union. Hence we learn, that 
"on the 6th day of April, 1691, the Presbyterian and Con- 
gregational denominations of christians, in Great Britain, 
met at Stepney, and there, by the blessing of Almighty 
God, after talking over their differences and agreements, 
consummated a union of the two denominations, by n- 
doptrng what was called the heads of agreement, embracing 
3 



26 

a few cardinal principles, which were to govern them in 
riieir fraternal intercourse." 

PrcsbySe-ria.ns and Congregationalists, with this spirit . 
living from intolerance and persecution in Ihe Old World., 
avould find little difficulty in uniting, when sharing in the 
toils and privations of a settlement in ihe wilds of ArAeiv 
iea. The Presbyterians, who settled in ihe New England 
States, generally united with the Congregationalists; and 
the Congregationalists, who settled in the middle and South- 
en, States, united with the Presbyterians. 

Jn the early settlement of this country, the Scotch Pres- 
byi^ria^ came into these arrangements somewhat reluc- 
tanly. They bat} .nat favored the plans of union between 
the two denominations in the Old YVorld. Many of them 
were devotedly attached to the measures of tfae Church 
of Scotland, a church that was long disposed to adhere t© 
her arbitrary principles, as will appear from ihe fa^etj tha-t 
as late as 171-2, during the reign of Queen Anne,, they 
published an act or testimony against religious toleration,. 

ft was not to be expected that Scotch Presbyterians, Eng- 
lish Presbyterians, Huguenots, Independents, &c. earning 
from so many different countries — England, Scotland, 
Wales, Ireland, France, Germany, &c. — could unite in 
any rigid system. The result was a modified Congrega- 
tionalism in New England, and a modified system of Pres* 
cyterianism south and west of New England. 

As the result of the plan of union of 1691, between the 
Presbyterians and Congregationalists of England, Mr. 
McKernie, a native of Ireland, was sent as a missionary 
io America. He with others in 1704 or 1705, formed the 
first Presbytery in America — the Presbytery of Phila- 
delphia. This Presbytery was composed partly of Pres- 
byterians and partly of Congregationalists. Mr. An- 
drews, the first pastor of the first church in Philadelphia, 
was a Congregational Presbyterian. And that church was 
sixty -four years without any ruling elders, though under 
the care of the Presbytery. 

Thus it appears, that Prcsbyterianism was introduced 
ittto this country from England, and not from Scotland, 
af) i upon the foundation of an enlightened and liberal tol- 
.0 ration. 

The Presbytery of Philadelphia was formed upon the 



27 

liberal principles which coatroled the united body in Eng*- 
land. The small number of churches, the sparseness of 
population^ and difficulty of supporting the : gospel,- wou'd 
contribute to such a result. When the first Presbytery was 
formed* it was composed of seven ministers. One of this3 
Was Mr. Andrews, a graduate of Cambridge, and a native 
of New England. Of the seven, it is not clear that more: 
than three of them were Presbyterians originally. It is 
however certain that Congregational materials were the 
most numerous. In 170L Massachusetts had eighty-six 
ministers; and in 1713, Connecticut had "forty-six church* 
es which had been illuminated by about ninety minis- 
ters. " At that time, therefore, in the history of the Amer- 
ican church, the Congregationalism composed a much lar- 
ger body than the Presbyterians. 

And from the fact of their emigrat4on South and West, 
they would exercise no small influence 10 the Presbyterian 
church. As early as 1640, the New Haven colony "mad j 
a large purchase on- both sides of the Delaware Bay and 
River. r * "This purchase was made with a view to trade, 
and for the settlement of churches in gospel order and pu^ 
rity. 5Y The settlements were made under the jurisdiction 
of New Haven, and "in close combination with that col- 
ony in all their fundamental articles. v 

The intercourse between the two denominations was* 
fraternal and liberal. The assistance which they afford- 
ed eacfo other* was often substantial. When the Presby- 
tery of Philadelphia, in 1709, applied to Sir Edmund Har- 
rison, one c4 the- dissenters- in London, for aid, they re- 
quested the Rev. Ministers of Boston, to join with them in 
"imploring help and assistance for promoting the inter- 
ests of our glorious Lord." And the Congregationalisms 
wrote in their behalf. 

In 1716, the first Synod was formed— the Synod of Phil- 
adelphia — upon the same liberal principles of a modified' 
Fre&byterianism. Fourteen years after this, Mr. An- 
drews, in a letter to Rev. Mr. Prince, of Boston, says: 
"We all call ourselves Presbyterians; none pretenjing to 
be called Congregationalists" — "And the ministers are all 
Presbyterian, though mostly from New England," (See 
Bill's History, p. 105.) 

Tbose who- had been reared in the church of Scotland* 



28 

were net generally pleased with those liberal principles 
which resulted in the union of Presbyterians and Con- 
gregationalists, and the founding of the American church 
upon the basis of a modified Presbyterianism. Soon after 
the formation of the Synod, murmurs of dissatisfaction, 
from the more rigid Scotch, were heard. The ministers 
from Scotland, who, to use the words of Dr. Miller, "wen- 
desirous to carry into effect the system to which they hud 
i een accustomed in all its extent and strictness," began in 
asist, that the church in this country should adopt the ex- 
clusive policy of the church of Scotland. In that coun- 
try they adopted the whole of the Old Westminster Con- 
fission, which made it the duty of the civil magistrate "to 
lake order, that unity and peace be preserved in the 
church, that the truth of God he kept pure and entire, 
that all blasphemies am! heresies be suppressed, ail cor- 
ruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or 
reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, ad« 
ministered and observed." And according to the Scotch 
mode of adopting the Confession of Faith, a minister be- 
longing to the established church of Scotland, could regard 
co man as a minister, who had not received 'license from 
v>ne of their Presbyteries, and subscribed a formula, which 
would bind him to adhere to the established- church, with 
its Confession, its entire system of Government, and its 
Solemn League and Covenant, which Covenant would bind 
him to endeavor "the extirpation of popery, prelacy, su- 
perstitior, heresy, schism," &c. These were the"princi* 
ples of the rigid Scotch u in all its extent and strictness." 
And it is not surprising, that such an adoption should 
meet with opposition in founding the American Presby- 
terian Church. 



( 29 ) 



CHAPTER ill. 

CONTROVERSY AND SCHISM OF 1741. 



As soon as the Presbyterian church began to prosper 
Tind extend its influence, men's views began to conflict.- 
The two extreme parties i nth is- controversy, wore the 
favorers of the Scotish system* and those who had im- 
bibed the more liberal principles of the Congregationalists. 
The strength of the parties, the reasons of their union, 
their differences and agreements are briefly set forth by 
Dr. Green, in his Advocate of August 1831. He says : 
"Indeed there were circumstances in the early history of 
our church, which so powerfully urged the Presbyterians 
and Congregationalists to a union, that we do- not wonder 
it was sought, nor think that we ought to attach blame to 
those who endeavored to effect it. The Presbyterians, at 
first, were but a handful, and naturally wished to increase 
their strength by any feasible alliance. The Congrega- 
tionalists, although more numerous, having: previously 
established themselves* in- the eastern part of the British 
provinces, and although not favorable to the settlement of 
Presbyterians among themselves, yet were willing to form 
a coalition which would manifestly extend their influence. 
The mother country was also, at the time, hostile to both 
these sects. She had, by persecution at home r driven 
both into exile, and even in exile, was far from regard- 
ing them with a propitious eye. To strengthen each 
other against a common, adverse and powerful influence, 
was certainly an operative motive to conjoint action, and 
to the amalgamation in- which it resulted. Such a result,. 
moreover, seemed to be recommended by an entire agree- 
ment of the parties in their doctrinal theology. Both 
Presbyterians and Congregationalists were, at this time, 
strict Calvinists. They were both, and we believe equally 
3* 



3D 

attached to the doctrinal creed of the Westminister Di- 
vines, especially to the summary of it which is contain- 
ed in the Shorter Catechism. It was in regard to church 
government, or the system of ecclesiastical order and dis- 
cipline, that the parties differed. The attempts to com- 
promise this difference, produced the difficulties and-dis- 
sentions in the early periods of our church." 

These are very correct and valuable items of history t 
especially as coming from Dr. Green, a thorough Old 
School man; and going to shew the strength of parties, 
the mild and moderate character of primitive, American 
Preobyterianism, &c. 

Or. MUier says, that in the organization of the Pres- 
byterian church in this country, they "had not formally 
and publicly adopted any particular confession of faith, or 
ecclesiastical constitution. They acted under a plan 
rather understood than officially ratified." This alarmed 
the more rigid of the Scotch Presbyterians. Dr. Green 
says : "In the year 1721, we have the first indication of 
the general controversy." In 1724 several ministers from 
Scotland began to insist upon a subscription to the old 
Westminister Confession of Faith, which, as it then was, 
would give to the civil magistrate the power of persecu- 
ting God's people, and bind the ministers to the extirpa- 
tion of heresy and schism. The descendants of the Puri- 
f -ms regarded this as an attempt to introduce the entire 
system of Scotch Presbyterianism, under which toleration 
}v\(\ been denied their forefathers. 

These contentions led to the Adopting Act of the Synod 
A' Philadelphia in 1729. The act embodied ihe liberal prin- 
ciples upon which Presbyterians and Congregationalists 
had united. It is as follows: 

"The committee brought in an overture upon the affair 
of the Confession, which, after long debating upon it, was 
ocd to in haec verba. Although the synod do not claim 
or pretend to any authority of imposing our faith upon 
ither men's consc i mccs, but do profess our just disatisfac- 
tion with, and abhorrence of such impositions, and do not 
offfy disclaim all legislative power and authority in the 
'•hurch, being willing to receive one another, as Christ 
hath received us, to the glory of God, and admit tofcllow- 

p in such ordinances, all such as we have grounds to 



believe Christ will at last admit to the kingdom of heaven ; 
yet we are undoubtedly obliged to take care that the faith 
once delivered to the saints, be kept pure and uncorrupt 
among us, and so handed down to our posterity ; and do 
therefore agree, that all the ministers of this synod, or that 
shall hereafter be admitted into this synod, shall declare 
their agreement in, and approbation of the Confession of 
Faith, with the Larger and Shorter Catechisms of the As- 
sembly of divines at Westminister, as being in all essen* 
iial and necessary articles, good forms and sound words, 
and systems of Christian doctrine, and do also adopt the 
said Confession of Faith and Catechism as the confession 
of our faith. And we do also agree, that the Presh) teries 
within our bounds shall always take care not to admit any 
candidate of the ministry, into the exercise of the sacred 
function, but what declares his agreement in opinion with 
rill the essential and necessary articles of said Confession 
either by subscribing the said Confession of Faith and 
Catechisms, or by a verbal declaration of their assent 
thereto, as such ministers or candidates shall think best. 
And in case any minister of this synod, or any candidate 
for the ministry, shall have any scruple with respect to 
any article or articles of said Confession of Faith or 
Catechisms, he shall, at the time of his making such de- 
claration, declare his sentiments to the Presbytery or 
Synod, who shall, notwithstanding, admit him to the exer- 
cise of the ministry within our bounds, and to ministerial 
communion, if either Synod or Presbytery shall judge his 
scruple or mistake to be only about articles not essential 
and necessary in doctrine, worship, or government. But 
if the Synod or Presbytery shall judge such ministers or 
candidates erroneous in essential and necessary articles of 
faith, the Synod or Presbytery shall declare them incapa- 
ble of communion with them. And the Synod do solemn- 
ly agree, that none of us will traduce, or use any oppro- 
bious terms of those that differ from us in those extra-es- 
sential, and not necessary points of doctrine, but treat 
them with the same friendship, kindness and brotherly 
love, as if they had not differed from us in such senti- 
ments/' 

It is not inferred from this act, that the Synod was too 
lutitudinarian, or that it was their purpose to tolerate every 



32 

species of error, as some would conjecture, "from higli 
Arianism to low Arminianism." They were orthodox 
men. To guard against misapprehension, on the after- 
noon of the same day, they say by way of explanation', 
'All the ministers of the Synod, except one that declared 
himself not prepared," "after proposing all the scruples 
&ny of them had to make against any of the articles and 
expressions in the Confession of Paith, and Larger and 
Shorter Catechisms-, of the Assembly of Divines of West- 
minister ; and we unanimously agreed in the solution of 
those scruples-, in declaring the said Confession and Cate- 
chism to be the Confession of their faith, except only some 
clauses in the 20th, and 23rd chapters, concerning which 
clauses, the Synod do unanimously declare, that they do 
not receive those articles in any such sense as to suppose 
the civil magistrate hath a controiing power over Synods,- 
with respect to their exercise of their ministerial authori- 
ty ; or power to persecute any for their religion, or in any 
case contrary to the Protestanl succession to the throne of 
Great Britain." 

But the adopting act 1 did not satisfy the friends of a 
rigid subscription; By this act, Dr. Green says, that the 
mother Synod "Congregationalized the church," and that 
"they left nothing of Presbyterianism behind but the 
name; so that it become nothing but a Presbyterio Con- 
gregational church." Some of these strict Presbyterians 
immediately left their former connection and joined the 
secession church, in consequence of this act. 

Efforts were made to stay this dissatisfaction and seces- 
sion. New Castle Presbytery, the next year, in Septem- 
ber 1730, adopted the following minute : "Whereas, divers 
persons belonging to several of our congregations have 
been stumbled and offended, at a certain minute of the 
proceedings of the last Synod, contained in a printed let- 
ter, because of some ambiguous words or expressions, 
contained therein ; being willing to remove, as far as in us 
lies, all causes and occasions of jealousies and offences in 
relation to that affair, and openly before God and the 
world, to testify, that we all with one accord, firmly adhere 
to that same sound doctrine, which we and our forefathers 
were trained up in." 



S3 

Two years after this, Donnegai Presbytery adopted a 
similar minute. 

These movements were calculated to alarm the Synod. 
In consequence of the adopting act, they saw some of 
their members going off to the seceders, and no less than 
two of their Presbyteries passing resolutions to counteract 
their liberal policy. The result was, that the dissatisfied 
party raised such a clamor against the adopting act, that 
at last the old Synod quailed before it. And in 1736 the 
Synod "do declare, that inasmuch as we understand that 
many persons of our persuasions, both more lately and 
formerly, have been offended with some expressions, or 
distinctions* in the first preliminary act of the Synod, 
contained in the paper relating to our receiving or adopt- 
ing the Westminister Confession and Catechisms, &c. ; 
that in order to remove said offence, and all jealousies 
that have arisen, or may arise in any of our people's 
minds on account of said distinctions and expressions, the 
Synod doth declare, that the Synod have adopted, and do 
still adhere to the Westminister Confession, Catechisms, 
and Directory without the least variation or alteration, 
and without any regard to said distinctions." 

This act was as little relished by the liberal party, as 
the adopting act was by the rigid party. And it rapidly 
paved the way for the schism which occurred in 1741. 

Other causes conspired to hasten the schism of the 
church. The two parties differed on the subject of revi- 
vals. The great revival of 1735, which commenced un- 
der President Edwards, and under Mr. Whitfield and 
others in 1740, gave rise to some departures from truth 
and sobriety. The "Old Side" were the opposers of the 
revival ; and the "New S.de" its ardent friends. The 
opposers wrote and circulated pamphlets to suppress the 
revival. 

There was also some difference between the parties 
about vital godliness, and qualifications for the ministry. 
The New Side men charged the Old Side with caring too 
much about literary qualifications, and not enough about 
experimental religion. Dr. Miller says, "The cordial aud 
active friends of this revival, generally coincided with that 
portion of the Presbyterian church, which was most friend- 
ly to ardent piety, and least zealous for Presbyterial order. 



34 

confessions of faith and literary qualifications in the minis- 7 
try." 

All these, and perhaps other conflicting views" alienated 1 
the feelings of brethren from each other. Dr. Miller' 
says: "Old Side men regarded their opponents as a body 
of extravagant and ignorant enthusiasts; while the New 
Side men regarded the Old Side men as a set of pharisaical 
formalists." 

These dissentions about qualifications for the ministry, 
revivals- of religion, vital godliness, and the manner of sub- 
scribing the old Confession of Faith,- resulted in the g-reatf 
schism of 1741. 

Dr. Miller, an Old School man, in speaking of that schism, 
censures both sides ; the New Side too severely. He says: 
'-•The Old Side was wrong in opposing the revival of reli- 
gion under the ministry of Whitfield and his friends; and 
in contending as they did at first, against examination on 
vital piety : while the New Side were as plainly wrong: 
in frequently violating that ecclesiastical order which they 
had stipulated to observe; in undervaluing literary quali-- 
fications^for the holy ministry ; and in giving countenance, 
for a time, to some real extravagancies and disorders which 
attended the revival of religion." That the New Side did 
not undervalue literature, is evident from the fact, that 
they immediately built up New Jersey College. And 
in regard to revivals, allowance can be made for the cen- 
sure, when it i& recollected that the "anxious seat" andi 
all such measures are ranked by Dr. Miller among <4 fa> 
tvavagamies and disorders." 

At 1 the time of the schism, there was but one Synod — 
that of Philadelphia. In 1745, the Synod of New York 
was organized, embracing the New Side men. 

One of the first efforts of the New Side party, was to 
build up New Jersey College, which was permanently lo- 
cated at Princeton, in 1757. The college had difficulties 
&nd opposition to- encounter. At first it languished (qy want 
cf funds* Bitf in^ 1753* the Synod' of New York, at the- 
request of the Trustees of the college, sent Rev. Samuel 
Davies and Rev. Gilbert Tennent to England to solicit aid. 
They were successful. The liberal benefactions received, 
placed the college in a respectable condition. (See Quarter- 
ly Register, Vol. 3: No. 4. p. 273.) 




85 

From President Davies, while on this tour, we also learn, 
that among the New Side men, during the schism, a rigid 
subscription of the Confession of Faith was not demanded. 
When interrogated, in England, on this subject, Mr. Da- 
yies says; "I replied that we allowed the candidate to men- 
lion his objections to any article in the Confession, and the 
judicatures judge whetherthe articles objected against were 
essential to Christianity; and if they judged they were not., 
they would admit the candidate, notwithstanding his o&- 
jectionsu" 

It will %e remembered, that this was the principle npoia 
which the American Presbyterian church was founded— 
this was the spirit of the adopting act of 1729 — this the 
policy of the New Side in that day, and for more than this* 
no party has since ever contended. 

But to return to our history. Seven years after the di- 
vision, efforts were made to unite the two Synods. But 
rthese -efforts di$ not succeed till .1758 — the parties having 
;been separate for seventeen years. 

Then the Synods united, under the name of the Synod 
of New York and Philadelphia. They agreed to adopt 
the Confession of Faith, as it had been adopted in 1729, 
disclaiming all "legislative poiver" "as being, in all es* 
sential and necessary articles, good forms and sound 
-.words." This was, therefore, a union upon what is gen- 
erally called the liberal principles of American Presby- 
terianism. 

In 1768, eight years after the union of the Synods, the 
Presbyterian Church proposed a convention of delegates 
of the pastors of the Presbyterian and Congregational 
churches in America^ which met annually, until it was 
interrupted by the American Revolution. 

In 1788, the General Assembly was organized. Some 
alterations were then made in the old Westminster Con- 
fession, making it more suitable to the views of the en- 
tire church. Two years after this, the Assembly "being 
peculiarly desirous to renew and strengthen every bond of 
union between brethren so nearly agreed in doctrine and 
forms of worship, as the Presbyterian and Congregational 
churches evidently are. do resolve, that the Congregation- 
al churches in New England be invited to renew their 
annual convention with the clergy of the Presbyterian 



36 

churctj." This led to the plans, of correspondence with 
the Congregational churches of New England, which are 
yet in existence, and which provide, that "every preacher 
traveling from one body to the other, and properly recom- 
mended, shall be received as an authorized preacher of 
the gospel, and cheerfully taken under the patronage of 
the Presbytery or Association, within whose bounds he 
shall find employment as a preacher/ 9 

In 1799, the Legislature of Pennsylvania passed an act 
incorporating "The Trustees of the General Assembly of 
the Presbyterian Church in the United Slates of Ame- 
rica," 



CHAPTER IV. 



THE POLICY OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN THE 
STRUGGLE FOR NATIONAL INDEPENDENCE. 



Though in ecclesiastical matters, there had been a rigid 
and a liberal party in the Presbyterian church in the Uni- 
ted States, yet in civil matters, the whole church acted the 
part of the most ardent friends of liberty, in the most per- 
ilous times of our history. The Episcopal church was the 
established church in the mother country. So it was in 
the colonies previously to the revolution. In some of the 
colonies there were chartered privileges which caused the 
dissenters not to feel the burdens of the establishment. Yet 
the Episcopal was the government church, and, in the 
Middle and Southern colonies, claimed most of the rights 
and immunities of the church in the mother country. 



S7 

From an early period in the settlement of some of the 
colonies, as in Virginia, very severe laws were enacted 
aga : nst dissenters — Presbyterians, Baptists, &c. This 
would very naturally cause them to dislike the establish- 
ment, and to wish to see the Episcopal hierarchy in this 
country overthrown. The rights of conscience as well 
as civil liberty, enlisted the energies of the Presbyterian 
church in the contest for our national independence. 

During the revolutionary war, the Synod of New York 
and Phildelphia was the highest judicatory of the Presby- 
terian church in the United States. More than a year 
before the declaration of Independence, in May, 1775, 
while the 2d Congres's was in session in Philadelphia, the 
Synod threw the weight of their official influence in favor 
of Congress and liberty. They addressed a pastoral let- 
ter to their people, and ordered it to be read in all the 
churches, on the day of the general fast in June, 1775. 
In this letter they say: "Be careful to maintain the union 
which at present subsists through all the colonies.. No- 
thing can be more manifest than that" -the success of every 
measure depends on its being inviolably preserved, and 
therefore we hope that you will leave nothing undone 
which can promote that end. In particular as the Conti- 
nental Congress, now sitting in Philadelphia, consists of 
delegates chosen in the most free and unbiassed manner 
by the body of the people, let them not only be treated 
with respect, and encouraged in their difficult service ; not 
only let your prayers be offered up to God for his di- 
rection in their proceedings, but adhere firmly to their 
resolutions ; and let it be seen that they are able to bring 
out the whole strength of this vast country to carry them 
into execution. We would also advise for the same pur- 
pose, that a spirit of candor, charity, and mutual esteem 
be preserved, and promoted towards those of different re- 
ligious denominations." 

This is the letter to which Ramsey refers, in the 2d vol- 
ume of his history. The chairman of the committee that 
prepared the letter, was the Rev< Dr. Witherspoon, one of 
the signers of the Declaration of Independence. The 
Rev. Dr. Rogers, afterwards the first moderator of the 
General Assembly, was one of the committee, And so 
4 



36 

was the Rev. Mr. Caldwell, who was afterwards shot by 
tfce British. 

The most prominent individuals in the Presbyterian 
church were the ardent friends of liberty. Dr. Wither- 
spoon's course is well known. 

Dr. Rogers was among the most influential in the 
e'urch. Gen. Washington conferred and corresponded 
with him about public matters, and received from him vaL- 
uo.hie information,. 

The Rev. David Rice, well known in Kentucky, was a 
member of a committee of public safety for Bedford coun- 
ty, Virginia, during most of the war. His brothers were 
soldiers in the army. In his sermons, he exhorted his peo- 
ple to constancy and firmness in the contest, in such lan- 
guage as this: "We should resist oppression by every 
r leans in our power to the last extremity ; cheerfully un- 
dergoing the various fatigues and dangers of military life. 
This is wise, because oppression is worse than death. Lei 
lis duly consider the evils of oppression, and particularly 
that oppression which is prepared for us, and resolve to 
suffer any losses, undergo any hardships., and expose our- 
selves to death with all its natural terrors, rather than sub- 
mit to it. Let us not indulge a mean, selfish disposition. 
but consider our wives and children, and even generations 
yet unborn, and remember that their happiness depends on 
our conduct." 

Dr. John B. Smith was President of Hamden Sydney 
College, Virginia, and one of the most popular ministers in 
the Presbyterian church. He took a bold stand for his 
country. At one time, when there was a sudden call 
for troops, he headed a company of students to bring aid 
to his countrymen in arms. 

Dr. James Hall was a popular minister in North Caro- 
lina, and afterwards moderator of the General Assem- 
bly, At a time of great emergency in the South, he, at 
the cioso of ins sermon on the Sabbath, told his people, 
that ail men had various duties to perform — and that he 
thought it his duty in the present crisis to shoulder his 
f/.rolock and fight for his country ; and that they need not 
for a time expect his services as a pastor. He formed a 
company chiefly of his own parishioners, and as their lead- 
er, served a campaign. 



39 

Many other examples of similar character might be giv 
en—but these are enough. 

After the independence of the colonies had been se- 
cured, the question involving religious liberty had to be 
settled. In the organization of State governments itm 
question came up : Shall there be an established reli- 
gion? Or, shall provision be made for some of the more 
prominent sects? Or, shall all connexion between enure h 
and state be dissolved, and equal liberty granted to all? 
The Presbyterians advocated equal liberty for all. 

In Virginia the struggle was most arduous. An at- 
tempt was made to retain the old establishment. This 
was opposed by the Presbyterians, and could not succeed , 
Then an effort was made to pass "a comprehensive incor- 
porating act," by which Presbyterians might participate 
in the establishment. This was opposed by the Presbyte- 
rians. It was not, however, till the year 1786, that the 
law securing full and equal liberty was passed in Virginia, 
Previously to this time the Presbyterians had sent five me- 
morials to the Legislature, all in favor of full religious lib- 
erty ; one of which was signed by ten thousand names* 
The last memorial was drawn up by a convention of Pres- 
byterian ministers and members in 1785, and was to be 
presented to the Legislature at its next session. It was 
accordingly presented by Dr. John B. Smith, who was 
heard at the bar of the house three chys successively m 
its support. The objects for which these efforts were 
made were gained — a bill wag passed granting to all full 
religious liberty — placing all ministers and sects upon an 
equal footing, and leaving it to the people of different de- 
nominations to support their own ministers by thair own 
voluntary contributions, (See the Presbyterian Advocate, 
published in Lexington? in 1830.) 



fc^- Note to the Reader. It was necessary, in getting at the spi- 
rit of the Presbyterian Controversy, to glance at the earlier periods of 
cur Church. In doing this, we see the difference between Scotch Prtg- 
byterianism and primitive American Presbyterianism. This will also 
enable us, in the prosecution of our design, to see the strong resem- 
blance which modern Old Schoolism has of the Scotish system. 

It has been charged upon the liberal party in the Presbyterian church, 
that they favor plans of union with the Congregations lists. We shew 



40 

from the history of our church, that if they err in thi8, the founders of 
our chinch erred still more; for, according to Dr. Green, "they Con- 
grega i jnalized the church." 

It husbeen charged upon the liberal party, that they have become 
too iax in theology, because they are willing to tolerate some shades oi 
difference. But it this be error, how great was the error of the foun- 
ders of our church, who, according to Dr. Miller, "had not formally and 
publicly adopted any particular confession of faith or ecclesiastical 
constitution. 1 ' If this be error, how great was the error of the mother 
Synod in the adopting act of 1729, when our ministers were required 
!o subscribe the Confession of Faith, '"as being, in all essential and ne- 
cessary articles, good forms and sound words." If this be error, how 
great was the error of Rev. Samuel Davies, when he asserted, that in 
his day, the principles of the adopting act were carried out ! 

The schism of 1741 is a part of the history oi our church, which is 
now looked into with deep interest, as exhibiting the same spirit, which 
has again resulted in the disruption of the church. 

The history of those early periods will shew which party has adhered 
to our primitive liberal policy, and which has been the advocate ot mea- 
sures, which neither we nor our fathers could bear. 

It has been charged upon the liberal party, that they are no Presbyte- 
rians, because they are in fa\or of voluntary associations — the Ameri- 
can Board, &e. But in the days of McKemie, or of Davies, who ever 
was told that he was no Presbyterian, because he would not favor the 
narrow policy of ecclesiastical Boards ? In that day these new mea- 
sures, new basis, and new tests were not known. 

In the struggle for independence— for civil and religious liberty — it 
will be seen, that American Presbyterianism was not Sc< tch Preslyte- 
rianism ; and while the Presbyterian chinch of Scotland was sitting 
securely in the lap of civil power, the American Presbyterian church 
was laboring for full religious liberty for all. 



( 41) 



CHAPTER V. 



PLAN- OF UNION OF 1S01. 



After the schism of 1741 had been healed, and the 
war with the mother country ended, nothing of impor- 
tance transpired, during the remainder of that century, 
to mar the friendly intercourse between Presbyterians 
and Congregationalists. Plans of union and correspon- 
dence between the two bodies were extensively 'cherished 
by both denominations. But the plan of Union of 1801 
has been the occasion of more unpleasant feeling than all 
the others. It ought therefore to be particularly noticed. 
It was a Plan of Union between Presbyterians and Con- 
gregationalists in the new settlements of New York, Ohio, 
-&c, wrj£re there was great difficulty in supporting the 
preaching of the gospel and other means of grace. It 
was thought to be agreeable to the powers vested in the 
General Assembly, by the constitution of the church, to 
correspond with other churches. The plan was matured 
by the Assembly, and by them proposed to the Association 
of Connecticut, and by that body unanimously adopted. 
The Plan of Union was as follows : 

"Regulations adopted by the General Assembly of the 
Presbyterian church in America, and by the General As* 
sociation of the State of Connecticut, (provided said As- 
sociation agree to them,) with a view to prevent alienation 
and promote union and harmony in those new settlements 
Avhich are composed of inhabitants from these bodies. 

I. It is strictly enjoined on all their missionaries to the 
new settlements, to endeavor, by all proper means, to pro- 
mote mutual forbearance and accommodation, between 
those inhabitants of the new settlements who hold the Pres- 
et* 



42 

byterian and those who hold the Congregational form of 
church government. 

2. If in the new settlements any church of the Congre- 
gational order shall settle a minister of the Presbyterian 
order, that church may, if they choose, still conduct their 
discipline according to Congregational principles, settling 
their difficulties among themselves, or by a council mutu- 
ally agreed upon for that purpose : but if any difficulty 
shall exist between the minister and the church or any 
member of it, it shall be referred to the Presbytery to 
which the minister shall belong, provided both parties agree 
to it; if not, to a council consisting of an equal number 
of Presbyterians and Congregationalists, agreed upon by 
both parties. 

3. U a Presbyterian church shall settle a minister of 
Congregational principles, that church may still conduct 
their discipline according to Presbyterian principles; ex- 
cepting that if a difficulty arise between him and his 
church, or any member of it r the cause shall be tried by 
the Association to which the said minister shall belong, 
provided both parties agree to it; otherwise by a council^ 
one half Congregationalists and the other half Presbyteri- 
ans, mutually agreed upon by the parties, 

4. If any congregation consists partly of those who 
hold the Congregational form of discipline, and partly of 
those who hold the Presbyterian form, we recommend to 
both parties that this be no obstruction to their uniting in 
one church and settling a minister; and that in this case, 
the church choose a Standing Committee from the commu- 
nicants of said church, whose business it shall be to call 
to account every memberof the church who shall conduct 
himself inconsistently with the laws of Christianity, and 
to give judgment on such conduct : and if the person con- 
demned by their judgment be a Presbyterian, he shall have 
liberty to appeal to the Presbytery; if a Congregational- 
ism he shall have liberty to appeal to the body of the male 
communicants of the church ; in the former case, the de- 
termination of the Presbytery shall be final, unless the 
church consent to a further appeal to the Synod, or to the 
Ccneral Assembly ; and in the latter case, if the party 
condemned shall wish for a trial by a mutual council, 
the cause shall be referred to such council. And pro- 



43 

vided that the said Standing Committee of any church shall 
depute one of themselves to attend the Presbytery, he may 
have the same right to sit and act in the Presbytery as a 
ruling elder of the Presbyterian church." (Assembly's 
Digest, p. 297.) 

This plan operated handsomely. And, except among 
a few friends of the most rigid Presbyterianism, no unea- 
siness was felt about the operations of the plan for a great 
number of years. The wisest and best men in the church 
formed the plan and were pleased with its results. As 
late as 1833, Dr. Miller said : "I have always been a warm 
friend to it; and should be grieved at the occurrence of 
any thing calculated to interrupt it, or render it less 
comfortable. If no such intercourse existed, it ought 
forthwith to be begun. Those who come so near together 
as the great body of ministers of New England and those 
of the Presbyterian church ought undoubtedly to know 
and love one another, and to co-operate in the great work 
of enlightening and converting the world. " And again : 
"The articles of intercourse between the Associations of 
New England and the General Assembly of the Presby- 
rian church are to be considered as a solemn ecclesiasti- 
cal compact, evidently intended to promote harmony, co-op- 
eration and mutual strength." 

Other plans of union and correspondence have been en- 
tered into between the Presbyterian church and other 
bodies. 

In 1803, a Plan of Union and Correspondence was pro- 
posed by the General Assembly to the Convention of Ver- 
mont. It was ratified by the Convention. 

In 1808, a Plan of Union was formed between the Syn- 
od of Albany and the Middle Association in the Western 
District, in the State of New York. 

In 1811, a Plan of Union and Correspondence was 
formed between the General Assembly and the General 
Association of Massachusetts. 

In 1821, a Plan of Union was entered into between the 
Presbyterian church and the Associate Reformed Synod — 
a body of christians familiarly known as Seceders^ ex-' 
tremely rigid on some points. The first article of that 
plan has been regarded, by many, as more objectionable 
than any feature in the plan of 1801, with the Association 



44 

of Connecticut. It is as follows: "The different Presby- 
teries of the Associate Reformed church shall either re- 
tain their separate organization, or shall be amalgamated 
with those of the General Assembly, at their own choice. 
hi the former case, they shall have as full powers and priv- 
ileges as any other Presbytery in the united body, and 
shall attach themselves to the Synods most convenient." 



Note to the Reader. The Plan of Union of 1801 has been made a 
pretext with the Reform party, for the dismemberment of the church. 
It will be seen that it was a wise and liberal arrangement. So thought 
Dr. Miller, one of the most prominent of the Reformers. The reader 
can compare the Plan of 1601 with the Plan of 1821— the one with 
Congregationalists and the other with the Seceders — and then deter- 
mine upon their merits. But he will be surprised to learn, that the 
Plan with the Seceders is regarded by the Reform party as altogether 
constitutional, while the Plan with the Congregationalists is entirely 
unconstitutional ! The fact, that the Seceders side with the Reform 
party, and the Congregationalists favor the more liberal policy of Ame- 
rican Presbyterianism, will throw some light on this subject. 



45 



CHAPTER VI. 



[TIE HOPKINSIAN CONTROVERSY, 



Though many plana of union and correspondence bad 
been "formed between the Presbyterians and Cong rega- 
tioaalists, yet jealousies and suspicions were two freely in- 
dulged by the more rigid Presbyterians, who became 
alarmed at what they were pleased to call New England 
Divinity. In 1792, Dr. Hopkins, of New England, pub- 
lished his system of Divinty. In his work -he contended 
for a religion above all selfishness. He taught a general 
atonement, the offer of salvation to all, moral depravity or 
inabuity of will, or that the great difficulty in the way of 
the sinner's salvation lies wholly in his tvilh This work 
was circulated extensively, and was the occasion of array- 
ing the old parties — the Scotch and the American, or the 
"Old Side" and the "New Side." The Old Side men con- 
demned Hopkinsianism as heresy. In 1812, a work of 
some 500 pages, called the Contrast, was published, to 
crush the errors of the Hopkinsians, and to show that the 
Hopkinsians differed from Calvin! 

In 1816, a work, called the Triangle, made its appear* 
ance in defence of the Hopkinsians and New Er gland 
theology. The author of this work says there were three 
great points of difference in theology between ihe two 
parties — that the "Old Side" men held the affirmative, 
and the Hopkinsians the negative of these propositions, 
nnmely. 

"1. That the whole human race are guilty of the sin 
of Adam, independently of their own conduct, and for 
that sin are truly deserving of eternal punishment ; and 
that every man ought to feel himself deserving of eternal 
damnation for the first sin of Adam. 



46 

2. That all men labor under a true and physical inca- 
pacity to do any thing which God requires. 

3. That Christ died for an elect number, and not for 
the sins of the whole world." 

Tne excitement ran high. The author of the Trian- 
gle, speaking of the rigid party in the church, says: 
? 'Their plan and their hope is, by manaeuvering, by art 
and intrigue, to undermine the reputation of the men who 
hold to the sentiments which prevail in New England." 
On the other hand, the rigid party denounced the writings 
of the New England men as 4 'consisting of nothing but 
verbiage, tautology, absurdity, nonsense, Armenianism 
Socinianism, Atheism," &c. 

In 1816, the Synod of Philadelphia came out in opposi- 
tion to Hopkinsianism. In their pastoral letter they say: 
*'The Synod assembled in Lancaster at the present time 
consists of a greater number of members than have been 
convened at any meeting for many years ; and from the 
free conversation on the state of religion, it appears, that 
all the Presbyteries are more than commonly alive to the 
importance of contending earnestly for the faith once 
delivered to the saints, and of resisting the introduction of 
Arian, Soc'mian, Armenian and 'Hopkinsian heresies: 
which are some of the means by which the enemy of souls 
would, if possible, deceive the very elect." And again : 
'•May the time never como when our ecclesiastical courts 
shall determine, that Hopkinsianism and the doctrines of 
eur Confession of Faith are the same thing; or that men 
are less exposed now than in the days- of the apostles to 
the clanger of perverting the right ways ©f the Lord.' r 

The author of the Triangle, in 1816, predicted the 
probable results of this rigid, uncompromising opposition 
to Hopkinsianism. He says : "Among the unhappy effects 
likely to result from the measures recently taken, we may 
well consider the gloomy prospects which threaten to over- 
spread the whole body of professed Christians in the 
Pnited States. How terrible and shocking the thought, 
that Christian brethren, friends and neighbors, united 
for many years in the strictest bonds of amity, must be 
severed under the charge of heresy! Many churches 
must be torn and agitated with fierce disputes, and proba- 
cy rent asunder; churches be cast out of Presbyteries, 



4? 

and perhaps Presbyteries out of Synods. And what ap- 
pearance would the Presbyterian church make, torn with 
divisions, distracted by disputes, rent with schisms, palsied 
by animosities, and branded with the name of a persecu- 
tor?" 

Here it will be seen what commotions the rigid party 
were making twenty-five years ago, under the pretext of 
fighting Hopkinsianisiiir-n- syatejn that has stood, and will 
Stand the test, 

It also appears from the controversial writings of that 
day, that the parties differed as to the propriety of de- 
manding a rigid subscription to the Confession of Faith, 
The author of the Triangle says,: "In subscribing the 
.Confession of Faith, my views were, I trust, not dissimi- 
lar to the views of those who compiled it, I viewed it as 
a noble system of doctrine, but as the work of fallible 
men, and of course, by rio means perfect or infallible, or 
to be regarded as divine law. I had never any idea of 
substituting it for the word of God, or laying it beside the 
sacred oracles as of paramount authority, at which all 
inquiry was to stop, and disputation cease. It was never 
in the dreams of its authors- to set it up as the sovereign, 
arbiter of conscience ; or that any deviation from any 
points therein contained were to be stigmatized as a devia- 
tion from the eternal standard of truth, or subject those 
who deviated to censure and excommunication." 

It is not certain how extensively the ministers and 
members of the Presbyterian church coincide in views 
with Dr. Hopkins. But it is certain, that but very few 
ecclesiastical bodies in the connexion could be brought to 
denounce the Hopkinsians. A Synod or two and perhaps 
& few Presbyteries armed themselves with ecclesiastical 
censures, talked and resolved and hurled their spiritual 
thunders at the errors of the Hopkinsians, and at all who 
would not receive the Old Side exposition of the .Confes- 
sion of Faith. But soon the storm blew over, and there 
was a calm; and now some who were, and are still Hop- 
kinsians, stand as fair even with the Scotch party* as if 
this controversy had never been waged. 



(48) 



CHAPTER VII. 



THE HOME MISSIONARY CONTROVERSY-OLD SCHOOL 
CIRCULAR— NEW SCHOOL* DISAVOWAL— DRS. GREEN 
AND BEMAN— CINCINNATI CONVENTION. 



Before the close of the last century, the General As- 
sembly appointed a Standing Committee on Missions. 
Yet but little could be done to supply the increasing deso- 
lations of the land with the preaching of the gospel. 
The success of the American Board of Commissioners 
for Foreign Missions, a voluntary society, patronized by 
Presbyterian, Dutch Reformed and Congregational 
churches^ induced those churches to try a similar plan 
for Domestic Missions. The wisest and best men in the 
Presbyterian church cordially recommended such a plan. 
Drs. Alexander and Miller wrote to Dr. Peters, the First 
Secretary, as follows : 

"Rev. and Dear Sir: — We rejoice to hear that there is 
a plan in contemplation for forming a Domestic Mission- 
ary Society, on a much larger scale than has heretofore 
existed. We have long been of the opinion, that the sub- 
ject of Domestic Missions is one which ought to interest 
the hearts, and to rouse the exertions and prayers of 
American Christians to an extent which very few appear 
to appreciate. Our impression is, that unless far more 
vigorous measures than we have hitherto witnessed shall 
be soon adopted for sending the blessed gospel and its 
ordinances to the widely extended and rapidly increasing 
New Settlements of our country, their active and enter? 



* The reader will see that I often use the names u OId School" and 
"New School, '/just as our New Easis brethren would do. I do it not 
because I consider them appropriate, but for the sake of distinction, as 
I wish to be understood by the mass of both parties. 



1 



40 

prising population must, at no great distance of time, be 
abandoned to a state not much short of entire destitution 
of the means of grace. We would fain hope, that no 
christian, who loves the Redeemer's kingdom, and re- 
flects on the value of immortal souls; no parent, who re- 
members that his own children, or children's children, 
may, in due time, make a part of the population of those 
districts; no patriot, who desires to see the virtue, peace, 
union and happiness of his country established, can possi- 
bly be indifferent to an object of such immense import- 
ance. Our prayer is, that the God of all grace may rouse 
the spirit of the nation on this subject ; and that the 
friends of religion who may be convened for the purpose 
of taking it into consideration, in the month of May next, 
may be directed to the adoption of a system which shall 
serve to give increasing interest and energy of proceeding 
in this momentous concern, and prove a source of lasting 
blessings to our beloved country." 

The feeling thus expressed by Drs. Alexander and 
Miller prevailed. After much consultation it was pro- 
posed to form a National Institution, embracing all those 
denominations that were on terms of "intercommunion 
and ecclesiastical correspondence/' This was the case 
with the Presbyterian, Dutch Reformed, and Congrega- 
tional churches. Delegates from these three denomina- 
tions met in the city of New York, May 10th, 1826, and 
formed the American Home Missionary Society. 

The plan for the Society's operations was generally 
and briefly this : to sustain Presbyterian ministers in fee*- 
ble Presbyterian churches, Dutch Reformed ministers in 
Dutch Reformed churches, and Congregational minis- 
ters in Congregational churches. The ministers were re* 
quired to be regularly authorized, and in good standing in 
their Presbytery, Classis or Association. 

Of the hundred and twenty-six delegates in that Con- 
vention, fifty-two were from New England. One hundred 
and one were from the territory embraced within the 
bounds of the Presbyterian church, seventy of whom 
were members of the Presbyterian church. 

Shortly after the formation of the Home Missionary 
Society, the General Assembly reorganized their Board of 
Missions. 



50 

The plan of the Home Missionary Society succeeded, 
and the Society flourished. But soon it was opposed by 
the friends of Ecclesiastical Boards. They advocated an 
exclusive policy, and endeavored to excite suspicion 
against the American Home Missionary Society. 

When in 1828 the Assembly's Board was reorganized, 
it was seen that the two Societies would conflict. Then 
the Home Missionary Society was desirous to unite with 
the Assembly's Board. Their Executive Committee pro- 
posed a plan of union. Of that plan, the late Dr. Rice 
of Virginia said, "I do greatly approve of the plan pro- 
posed by the Executive Committee of the A. H. M. So- 
ciety." But the plan was rejected, and the A. H. (VT. 
Society was greatly blamed, by the Old School party, for 
seeking a union. 

The Old School party wished to rouse the church in 
favor of the Assembly's Board, which had hitherto been 
comparatively inoperative, against the A. H. M. Society. 
In 1829, only three years after the formation of the A. H. 
M. Society, this subject was brought up in the General 
Assembly, and the following preamble and resolution 
adopted : 

"While the Assembly would affectionately solicit the 
co-operation of the churches with their own Board of Mis* 
&ions: yet as many of our churches have already united 
their efforts with the A. H. M. Society, and the A. B. C. 
F. Missions, therefore 

Resolved, as the sense of the Assembly, that the 
churches should be left entirely to their own unbiased 
and deliberate choice of the medium through which their 
charities shall flow forth to bless the perishing." ( Min- 
utes, 1829, p. 374.) 

This liberal policy did not suit the fiiends of Ecclesias- 
tical Boards. In 1831, the A. H. M. Society was al- 
most simultaneously attacked in Philadelphia and Cincin? 
nati. At a meeting of the Cincinnati Presbytery in Jan. 
1831, Rev. Mr. Crane, agent of the Assembly's Board of 
Missions, requested the Presbytery to appoint a Board of 
Agency for the Assembly's Board for the Valley of the 
Mississippi. This measure was advocated by Dr. Wilson 
and others. But the Presbytery refused to comply with 
the request. Dr. Wilson then threw out suspicions and 



51 

insinuations against the A. H. M. Society. Soon after 
this,, he published a pamphlet entitled "Four Propositions 
sustained against the claims of the A. H. M. Society. " 
Speaking of the friends of this Society he says, that 
"they profess to be Presbyterians for the purpose of sub- 
verting the doctrines, and overthrowing the Presbyterian 
church." (p. 18.) 

This was considered a very uncharitable suspicion 
against such men as Drs. Woods, Porter, Cornelius, Pay- 
son, Wisner, Griffin, Day, Humphrey, &c, of New 
England, and Drs. Rice, Blackburn, Alexander, Miller, 
Cox, McAuley, Richards, Skinner, Beman, Cleland, Nel- 
son, Anderson, Allan, &c, of the Presbyterian church. 

These charges too, were made against the A. H. M. 
Society in the year 1831, when it was known, that in the 
year 1830, that Society had done more to supply the des- 
titute with the preaching of the gospel than had been 
done by the Assembly's Committee or Board in the space 
of almost forty years. 

Soon after the publication of Dr. Wilson's pamphlet in 
Citcinnati, a second edition of five thousand copies was 
published in Philadelphia by the friends of the Assembly's 
Board. 

In noticing this pamphlet, Mr. Peters, the Secretary of 
the Society, said: <4 If any have suspected us of ulterior 
views unfriendly to the Presbyterian church, will not our 
steady attachment to its best interests, and our zealous 
efforts to build up its desolations, in a little while convince 
all candid men, who are willing to come to the light, that 
their suspicions are unjust and cruel?" Again: "The 
stand taken by my friend, Dr. Wilson, with all the light 
he has upon the subject, surprises me much. But 1 am 
still not without hope, that on fuither reflection, he will 
come to a more friendly state of feeling towards the A. H. 
M. Society. Surely he must see that his suspicions of 
unfriendliness to the Presbyterian church on our part, 
are not only in the face of all the evidence, but also con- 
trary to express and reiterated assurances of our unwaver- 
ing desire to build up the Presbyterian church over the 
whole field of the West and the South. And are we not 
doing it more efficiently than all the other Missionary So« 
cieties together !" 



52 

The strong argument of the advocates of the -Assem- 
bly's Board was, that the church, in her distinctive 
character, ought to evangelize the world ; that is ecclesias- 
tically, not through voluntary societies. To this it was 
replied, that Presbyterians regard their denomination only 
as a part of the general church, and that if for the rea- 
son assigned, they stand off from the A. H. M. Society, 
for the same reason they might refuse to operate with the 
A. B. C. F. Missions, the American Bible Society, the 
American Tract Society, or the American Sunday School 
Union. 

The strife by this time rose high. The friends of Ec- 
clesiastical Boards, or of an exclusive policy, appropria- 
ted to themselves the names, "Old School? — "the ortho- 
dox" — "true friends of the Presbyterian church.? They 
called the friends of Voluntary Association?, "New 
School," charging them with a partiality for the Con- 
^regationalists, New England theology, &c. With many, 
names had a powerful charm. To the name "Neiv 
School " the friends of a liberal policy have objected. But 
for the sake of distinction it has been used, knowing that 
the spirit and conduct of the parties ought to decide who 
are ''the true friends of the Presbyterian Church;" 
knowing also, as President Young once said, that "new 
powers are often usurped while old names are retained." 

It appears from the documents of 1831, that the Old 
School party endeavored to secure the control of the 
church, the funds, Missionary operations, &c, by creat- 
ing an alarm about doctrines. The case of Mr. Barnes, 
which came before the Assembly of 1831, excited general 
interest, and afforded the Old School an opportunity of 
mingling doctrinal differences with every question that 
was agitated. But still they were unsuccessful. 

The action of the Assembly of 1831 did not, therefore, 
satisfy the friends of the Assembly's Board. That party 
was in a minority. After the close of the Assembly, 
they appointed a Central Committee at Philadelphia to 
correspond with Committees which they appointed in every 
Synod supposed "to be friendly to their views, and dis- 
posed to co-operate in giving efficiency to their plans." 

The appointment of these Committees, with a view 
eventually to control the highest judicatory of the church. 



5S 

\ 

was regarded by the true friends of the church, as an un- 
constitutional and revolutionary measure. In July 1831, 
the Central Committee issued their Circular* It is too 
lengthy for insertion here. It can be seen in theCalvinis* 
tic Magazine and other periodicals of that day. It was a 
"panic" document as the following extract will show : 

"Our Board of Education, and Board of Missions must 
both receive a liberal patronage and a decided support. 
This is essential. Without this we are undone. The Vol- 
untary Associations that seek to engross the patronage of 
our church, and have already engrossed a large part of 
it, have taken the start of us, in the all-important con* 
cerns of education and of missions. They now labor to 
get the whole of these into their own hands; well know- 
ing that if this be effected, they will infallibly, in a very 
short time, govern the church." Being in a minority, the 
Old School arrayed themselves against the General As- 
sembly, the highest judicatory of the church. From the 
extract above, it will be seen that they were alarmed be- 
cause their party could not "govern the church." 

At the same time, (July 1831) Dr. Green, in the Chris- 
tian Advocate, commenced the publication of a series of 
numbers on "The present state of the Presbyterian 
church." They were pretty much in the style of the 
"Circular," as a few extracts will show : 

"We say then, that the members of the last Assembly 
appear to us to be far more strongly and characteristically 
marked by a difference in theologcal views and attach- 
ments, than those of any other Assembly we have ever 
seen. Indeed the difference we speak of was unhesita- 
tingly avowed, by a number of the members in their 
speeches; and to give our readers a right understanding 
of it, we shall, as correctly as we can, divide those among 
whom this difference did and does exist, into two classes 
— sometimes called- — and occasionally so called in the As- 
sembly — the Old School and the New School Presby- 
terians." "We speak what we firmly believe, when we 
say, that unless, in the passing year, there is a general 
waking up of the Old School Presbyterians, to a sense of 
their danger and their duty, their influence in the General 
Assembly will forever afterward be subordinate, and un- 
der control ; and we are willing that men of all parties 
5* 



54 

should know that such is our conviction. We wish for no 
concealment on the subject. It need not be told that 
those whom we have ranked in the second class of the 
constituent members of the Assembly, were a decided 
majority of that body. They chose a Moderator suited 
to their plans and intentions; and it was in their power 
to dispose of every measure that came before the judica- 
ture, just as they pleased." Then follows a dissertation 
upon the character of Drs. Beman and Peters. There is 
one remark in this connection, which is true, and mani- 
festly so, in the treatment which the New School — a ma- 
jority, received at the hands of their Old School brethren. 
"It will always happen that party spirit in one portion of 
the church will beget it in another. Indeed when parties 
exist, and are earnestly opposed to each other, the one that 
uses no means to obtain or preserve an ascendency, will al- 
most immediately be crushed, by the one that actively em- 
ploys such means." 

The next extract from Dr. Green will show, that in his 
opinion, "the principal cause" of party spirit was in 
relation to missionary operations. As this difficulty 
was among the most prominent it should be w r ell under- 
stood. Dr. Green says: "But the peculiar ardor of ex- 
citement now prevalent, is principally attributable to a 
special cause, which ought to be more distinctly marked. 
It is not the case of Mr. Barnes. That case was indeed 
made an adjunct, and an auxiliary of the principal cause ; 
but the cause itself, the baneful apple of discord which has 
been thrown into the midst of us, is the inflexible purpose 
and untiring effort of the Corresponding Secretary and 
General Agent of the A. H. M. Society, to amalgamate 
the Board of Missions of the General Assembly with that 
Society." 

On the other side, a "Disavowal" was published by 
prominent New School ministers, supposed to be implica- 
ted in the Christian Advocate, and by the Circular of the 
Central Committee. They say : "Now, if any persons 
adverse to the views and measures of Dr. Green, whom 
he calls opponents, are implicated by the foregoing 
charges, it is natural to suppose, from local circumstances 
and other causes, that some or all of the subscribers to 
this paper are intended: we think it, therefore, our duty 



55 

to the church and to ourselves, hereby solemnly to de- 
clare, that no one of us knew of any pre-concerted plan, 
combination, or effort, designed to affect the members, 
the character or the measures of ihe last Assembly." 
"We repel, also, the numerous insinuations directed 
against us, if classed with those who are called "New 
School Presbyterians," that we are hostile to evangelical 
orthodoxy, sound Presbyterianism, and the best interests 
of the Presbyterian church." 

In reference to the Circular, they say : "We have read 
with pain the Circular signed by a Central Committee of 
Correspondence in this city; and we solemnly declare, 
that we know of no member of the Presbyterian church 
who has been willing to expose to hazard the vital interests 
of the same, or who desires either the mutilation or sub- 
version of our Presbyterian system." 

A similar" disavowal was made by Dr. Beman in his 
Review of "The present state of the Presbyterian 
church." It was published in the Philadelphian in 1831. 
The following are extracts from that noble vindication. 

"The same shades and modifications of doctrinal views 
have been held by the members of that body for many years 
past, and when any question came up adapted to call forth 
peculiar views, these shades and modifications have been 
disclosed. But let it be remembered, that we never had a 
case like that of Mr. Barnes till the present year. And the 
venerable Editor (Dr. Green) may thank himself if Hhe dif- 
ference in theological views and attachments 9 were 'more 
strongly and characteristically marked 9 than he could 
wish. Could a man be so infatuated as to suppose, that 
a minister, holding the sentiments expressed by Mr. 
Barnes, could be deposed or censured as a heretic* without 
creating some excitement in the Presbyterian church ? 
The same effect essentially would have been witnessed, 
under similar circumstances, in any Assembly at least 
for twenty years past. But here let it be remarked, that 
this very case, though it called forth the expression of 
doctrinal views, did not produce any uniform or settled 
arrangement of parties. Some were in favor of Mr. 
Barnes, because they were essentially with him in senti- 
ment ; others because they have always known that simi- 
lar sentiments were held and tolerated in the Presbyterian 



58 

church ; and those persons who have sustained Mr. Barnes, 
were some of them not only pupils but teachers in the 
Old School as well as the New." "From this discussion, 
it would seem that the majority and the minority in the 
last Assembly, were not formed on the principle of doc- 
trinal distinction, but on the principle of ecclesiastical 
order. The terms Old School and New School more pro- 
perly mark the difference in theological sentiment, and 
are employed somewhat incorrectly and loosely by this 
writer, where the terms minority and majority, or High 
Church and Low Church parties would have been more 
simple and appropriate, and much less liable to mislead 
the reader. A correct and analytical classification of the 
members of the last General Assembly, as it strikes me, 
would be the following. The majority were the Low 
Church Presbyterians. They are friendly to those volun- 
tary associations which are the glory of our age and na- 
tion : such as the Board of Commissioners for Foreign 
Missions, the American Education Society, and the Ame- 
ican Home Missionary Society. They love these Socie- 
ties, because their constitutions breathe a liberal spirit, 
and because their beneficent course has secured the confi- 
dence of the public." "If the object of this public alarm 
is demanded, Dr. Green himself shall answer the ques- 
tion. 'We speak what we firmly believe, when we say, 
that unless, in the passing year, there is a general waking 
up of the Old School Presbyterians to a sense of their 
danger and their duty, their influence in the General As- 
sembly will forever afterward be subordinate and under 
controls This text is plain enough without a comment. 
The imminent 'danger'' that now threatens the church is. 
that the 'Old School Presbyterians' are likely to lose 
'their influence in the General Assembly,' and their pres- 
sing duty is to exert themselves, this year, to regain this 
influence.'" 

The last quotation we will make from Dr. Beman, when 
compared with subsequent developments, will show that 
he well understood the merits of the controversy. He 
says : "The great controversy now carried on in the Pres- 
byterian church principally relates to questions of ecclcsi* 
astical order ; and among these the mode of conducting 
missions appears to be considered the most important by 



57 

the High Church party. This question, if we may credit 
the Advocate, more than any thing else, now feeds the 
lire of party zeal ; and if alienation is to increase, and the 
breach to become wider, and more and more ruinous, it 
would seem .probable that this is to constitute the princi- 
pal source of the desolating mischief. True, Dr. Green 
has sounded the alarm against heresy, and said many 
things which would lead the ignorant and timid to appre- 
hend that our doctrinal standards are about to be annihi- 
lated, but when he touches the cord of 'ecclesiastical or- 
derf there is a vibration which tells us the whole truth." 

From an impartial review of the controversy at that 
time, it is manifest that the commotion was made by the 
Old School struggling for power. Dr. Green was one of 
the oldest and most excellent men in the church. He and 
a few others about Philadelphia had long been in the habit 
of controling the General Assembly. The delegates to 
the Assembly had been in .the habit, year afier year, of 
going up to Philadelphia, and giving their sanction to these 
fathers and brethren. But now, when the church had 
grown to considerable size, and the public sentiment of 
the church was likely to go in favor of voluntary socie- 
ties, and in opposition to the plans and control of these 
brethren, they became alarmed, supposing that while they 
were in a minority, the truth and order of the church 
would be exposed to "impending ruin." Hence Dr. Wil- 
son, in his Standard in 1831, in speaking of the New 
School, says: "Who (unless God of his infinite mercy 
arrest the evil,) will in a short time be able to control ev- 
ery existing judicatory and institution of learning belong- 
ing to the Presbyterian church throughout the whole 
land." 

Admitting that these brethren conscientiously believed 
that the church was in danger unless their plans were 
carried out, it is still evident, from the emphasis they lay 
on the word "control " they were under the influence of 
the littleness of party fear. They could not brook the 
idea of the Assembly's being under the control of the oth- 
er party ! 

From the history of those times, it is also manifest that 
if the majority had been willing to be governed by the 
minority, doctrinal difference would have created no diffi- 



58 

culty — New England Divinity could easily have been 
tolerated. The error of the New School, therefore, in 
1831, (if error it can be called) was in refusing to let the 
minority govern the church ! 

In reference, however, to the missionary question, the 
Assembly of 1831 was desirous to have the difficulties 
compromised. They passed the following resolution : 

"That in view of existing evils, arising from the sepa- 
rate action of the Assembly's Board of Missions and the 
A. H. M. Society in the West, it be recommended to the 
Synods of Ohio, Cincinnati, Indiana, Illinois, Kentucky, 
Tennessee, West Tennessee, and the Presbyteries in the 
West connected with them, to correspond with one another 
and devise a plan for carrying on missions in the West, 
and report the result of their correspondence to the next> 
General Assembly ; it being understood that brethren in 
the West shall be left to adopt their own plan, and any 
other Synods and Presbyteries, besides the above men- 
tioned, in the Valley of the Mississippi, may be embraced 
in the correspondence, if they desire it." 

In conformity with this recommendation, a Convention 
met at Cinctnnati in November 1831. Delegates from 
twenty Presbyteries were present. The result of their 
deliberations was favorable to the Assembly's Board, as 
appears from the following resolution : 

"Resolved, That under these circumstances they deem 
it inexpedient to propose any change in the General As- 
sembly's mode of conducting missions, as they fully ap- 
prove of that now in such successful operation ; and that 
the purity, peace and prosperity of the Presbyterian 
church materially depend on the active and efficient aid 
the sessions and Presbyteries under its care may afford to 
the Assembly's Board." (Minutes of Convention, p. 14.) 

With the action of the majority, the minority were dis- 
satisfied. They submitted to the public a Report, in a 
pamphlet of forty -eight pages, in which they protested 
against the course pursued by their Old School brethren 
in the Convention. They complained that the members of 
the Synod of Pittsburgh, which was not named, or con- 
templated in the Assembly's resolution, were admitted to 
seats, and that they controled the Convention. They 
t'dld the Home Missionary interest in the West was not 



59 

represented. They complained, that the official influence 
of the Assembly's Board had been used to prevent any 
compromise or agreement short of what would result in 
the ultimate death of the A. H. M. Society ; and that 
the instructions of the Assembly had not been regarded 
by the majority of the Convention, inasmuch as the As- 
sembly had recommended some action, that all might 
"endeavor to agree upon some plan of conducting mis- 
sions," and the course of the majority was calculated to 
preclude all agreement. (See .Report.) 

After this, efforts at union or agreement were generally 
abandoned. The friends of each Society pursued their 
own way. 

The character, strength and plans of the parties re- 
mained, for the most, unchanged, during the years 1831, 
2, 3, and 4. Each year the New School had the majori- 
ty in the Assembly. Had they designed to revolutionize 
the church, they could have done it; for, in the language 
of Dr. Green, "it was in their power to dispose of every 
measure that came before the judicature just as they 
pleased." But their course was marked by great modera- 
tion and forbearance. 



(60) 



CHAPTER VIII. 

VOLUNTARY SOCIETIES AND ECCLESIASTICAL BOARDS. 



The opposition which was made to the A. H. Mis- 
sionary Society gave rise to the general controversy a- 
bout the manner of conducting benevolent operations. 
The A. B* C. F. Missions, and the A. Education Society, 
and the A. H. M. Society were called Voluntary Socie- 
ties — not under the ecclesiastical control of the Presbyte- 
rian, Congregational, or Dutch Reformed Church, but pat- 
ronized by these several churches — bodies which are Cal- 
vinistic in their creeds, and which recognize each other as 
orthodox, and are upon terms of friendly correspondence. 
Upon this principle — the voluntary — are founded the A. 
Bible, the A. Tract, the A. Temperance, and the A. Sun- 
day School Societies. 

The New School were generally the friends of the Vol- 
untary Societies, and the Old School the friends of Ec- 
clesiastical Boards. 

The friends of ecclesiastical organizations urged that 
missionary and other benevolent offorts to convert the 
world, ought to be under the control of the church, in her 
distinctive capacity ; that Presbyterians, in educating 
young men for the ministry and in sending ministers to 
the destitute in our own country or to the heathen, ought 
not to co-operate with Congregationalists, or others, in a 
Voluntary Society ; that all the secular and financial busi- 
ness of the work of missions ought to be under the super- 
vision of the General Assembly ; that upon the voluntary 
principle, we could have no security for the truth and or- 
der of the church. 

The friends of the voluntary principle were the active 
friends of missions and other benevolent efforts. They 



6i 

considered themselves free to unite with others, in any 
way that would promise success. They conceded to the 
church the right and power to preserve doctrinal purity 
and discipline. But they denied to the church any power 
to control the property of her members. They cherished 
a high regard, upon principle, for associations which were 
"free and voluntary, unsupported by civil and ecclesiastical 
power." 

They urged that the Great Head of the church left it to 
his people to act voluntarily in their efforts to evangelize 
the world. He left it to the conscience of each disciple, 
hoiomuchhe would give, and for what, and through what 
channel, and in this, to be uncontrolled by any church 
court. 

They urged, that the Presbyterian church was only a 
small part of the Church of Christ, and to confine the ef 
forts of our members to our party organizations was a- 
dopting an exclusive, sectarian policy unauthorized by 
the Word of God ; that Jesus Christ did not range his peo- 
ple under sectarian banners, that they might manifest 
more zeal for a party than for our common evangelical 
Christianity. 

It was also urged , that our General Assembly, as a 
church court, was not calculated to conduct efficiently the 
benevolent enterprises of the age. The members of the 
Assembly live far apart — are changed generally every 
year — know comparatively little of the work, and are to- 
gether only a few days. The Boards of their appointment 
were the most irresponsible of any — not answerable to 
the public — only to the Assembly — exhibiting an unlove- 
ly feature that has caused even Old School men to call 
such a contrivance "a Presbyterian hierarchy" 

The supervision of these Boards by the Assembly must 
ever be exceedingly imperfect, rather a hindrance to their 
energetic and healthful action : or, when there is misman- 
agement, this supervision might be made a cloak to hide 
abuses from the public eye. 

It was furthermore urged, that the General Assembly 
was constituted, aa a bond of union, for the preservation 
of truth and order ; not to attend to the secular affairs of 
schools, colleges, seminaries of learning, boards, &c. And 
especially that the handling of large sums of the money be* 
6 



62 

longing to the various societies would hazard the spiritual 
affairs of the church, by presenting temptations to avarice, 
ambition, jealousy, intrigue, bargain, &c. And that it 
was dangerous to give to our General Assembly legisla- 
tive, judicial, and executive power, all backed by the large 
and increasing funds of the church ; and that nothing was 
better calculated to hasten the corruption, and secure the 
overthrow of the church than such a concentration of 
power. 

The controversy about the American Home Missionary 
Society has already been noticed. That about the A. B. 
0,. F' Missions will be in its proper place. 



( 63) 



CHAPTER IX. 



ASSEMBLY OF 1831— MR. BARNES' CASE—RE-EXAMINA- 
TION— ELECTIVE AFFINITY. 



The struggle about the American Home Missionary Soci- 
ety had thrown the church into commotion, before the 
case of Rev. Mr. Barnes came up. This, however, aid- 
ed in keeping up the excitement between the parties. 

In 1830, Mr. Barnes received a call to become the pas- 
tor of the First Presbyterian church in Philadelphia. The 
minority of the Philadelphia Presbytery tried 10 prevent 
his becoming pastor of said church. In this they were 
overruled by the majority. They then insisted on the 
right to examine him respecting his theology. In this 
they were also overruled. They then complained to the 
Synod of Philadelphia. The Synod referred the com- 
plainants back to the Presbytery, and ordered the Presby- 
tery to hear and decide upon their objections to the or- 
thodoxy of Mr. Barnes' Sermon, styled "The Way or 
Salvation." 

By this time, the minority of Presbytery had become 
the majority. The case was then referred to the. General 
Assembly. The following resolutions were there a- 
d op ted : 

44 i. Resolved. That the General Assembly, while it ap- 
preciates the conscientious zeal for the purity of the 
church, by which the Presbytery of Philadelphia is be- 
lieved to have been actuated, in its proceedings in the case 
of Mr. Barnes; and while it judges that the sermon, by 
Mr. Barnes, entitled "The Way of Salvation," contains 
a number of unguarded and objectionable passages ; yet 
is of the opinion, that, especially after the explanations 
which vyere given by him of those passages, the Presby- 



64 

\ery ought to have suffered the whole to pass without fur- 
ther notice. 

2. Resolved, That in the judgment of this Assembly, 
the Presbytery of Philadelphia ought to suspend all fur- 
ther proceedings in the case of Mr. Barnes." 

This case gave rise to two other questions, viz : — 1. 
Whether Presbyteries have the right to re-examine minis- 
ters coming to them, with clean papers, from other Pres- 
byteries ? and 2. Whether it was unconstitutional to di- 
vide Presbyteries upon the principle of Elective Affinity ? 

The Old School contended for the right to re-examine 
ministers, coming from other Presbyteries. They eon- 
tended, and with much plausibility, that every society 
ought to judge of the qualifications of its own members'. 

On the other hand, it was urged, that the Presbyteries 
were only parts of one great society, the qualifications of 
whose members are to be judged of according to the Book 
of Discipline. Indeed the action of the church, in the 
highest judicature, has been against this practice. Our 
present revised form of government was adopted by the 
( General Assembly in 1821. On the same page with the 
record of the adoption, are the following minutes : 

'•The following Overture, from the Presbytery of Balti- 
more, was received and read, viz : 

That after the twelfth article of the tenth Chapter of 
the revised Form of Government the following be added :" 
Thirteenth. Every Presbytery shall judge of the quali" 
Jlcations of its own members. On motion, 

Resolved, That it is inexpedient to grant the request 
contained in the above overture ; or make any new alte- 
rations at present in the Book of Discipline." 

It would seem from this, that the Baltimore Presbytery 
thought that the Book of Discipline did not give them the 
right to re-examine those in good standing coming from 
other Presbyteries. And the Assembly, at the time of a- 
dbpting our Form of Government, thought it inexpedient to 
adopt such regulation, so well calculated to impair confi- 
dence and alienate the affections of the ministers of one 
Presbytery from those of another. 

The contest about elective affinity was of similar bear* 
)i)£. This difficulty grew out of the attempt of the Phil- 
Philadelphia Presbytery to prevent the settlement of Mv, 



65 

Barnes as pastor of the First Church in Philadelphia. In 
1831, the General Assembly passed the following res- 
olution: 

"Resolved, That it will be expedient, as soon as the re- 
gular steps can be taken, to divide the Presbytery in such 
a way as will be best calculated to promote the peace of 
the ministers and churches belonging to the Philadelphia 
Presbytery." 

According to the usage of the church, for many years, 
and to the powers granted, it was the duty of the Synod 
of Philadelphia to do this. But at their next meeting 
they refused, the majority being Old School. In 1832, 
certain members of the Philadelphia Presbytery presented 
to the General Assembly a complaint against the Synod, 
for refusing to divide the Presbytery. After a number of 
days spent in deliberation on the subject, the Assembly 
erected the Second Presbytery of Philadelphia, embracing 
Mr. Barnes and thirteen other ministers, and fourteen 
churches. This measure was carried by a vote of 158 
to 33. 

This new Presbytery was not bounded by any lines or 
streets, but composed of ministers and churches, scatter- 
ed over the city and its vicinity, that had a sympathy for 
each other. It was evident to the General Assembly, that 
there was no prospect of the two parties in the old Pres- 
bytery acting harmoniously. The New School in the 
Presbytery, being in a minority, stated to the Assembly. 
that they were straitened in their work, and that their in- 
fluence and usefulness were prevented by brethren in the 
same Presbytery. This was a case that threatened the 
peace of the whole church. And it was the duty of the 
Assembly to promote the peace of the church. They felt 
bound to make an effort to put an end to this controversy. 
They, therefore, said to Drs. Ely, McAuley and others, 
take your brethren, and go in peace, and let Dr. Greeu 
and his friends live to themselves and be at peace. 

In -this controversy the Old School were violent against 
elective affinity, urging that it was absurd and unconstitu- 
tional for a Presbytery to have no geographical limits, or 
for two Presbyteries to cover the same ground. 

The other party urged, that the Assembly had a right 
to erect a Presbytery — that the peace of the church de- 
6* 



do 

Branded it — that the Assembly had before done it — and that 
the elective affinity principle had been acquiesced in, very 
happily, by the Old School, when it had operated to in- 
crease their power, as in the case of the union with the 
Associate Reformed Church in 1&21. According to that 
plan, as adopted by the Assembly, the affinity principle is 
fully carried out. One article of that plan was as fol- 
lows : 

•'The different Presbyteries of the Associate Reform- 
ed Church shall either retain their separate organization, 
or shall be amalgamated with those of the General Assem- 
bly at their own choice. In the former case [by elective 
affinity] they shall have as full powers and privileges as- 
an-y other Presbytery in the united body* 

In this case, the Assembly which adopted our revised 
Form of Government, allowed those Presbyteries, coming 
to us from another body, to retain their former organiza- 
tion. One of them did this. And thus the General As- 
sembly permitted two Presbyteries — an Assembly Presby- 
tery and an Associate Presbytery — to cover the same 
ground and have jurisdiction over the same territory. 

It was, therefore, urged by the friends of the Second 
Presbytery, that it was strange, that the elective affinity 
principle could give Presbyterial existence to Seceders and 
not to Presbyterians! 

The Synod of Philadelphia, being Old School, in the fall 
of 1832 refused to receive the delegates from the Second 
Presbytery, and declared the Act of the General Assem- 
bly, in forming the Second Presbytery, unconstitutional 
and void ! The Assembly of 1833 would not submit to the 
dictation of the Synod, but adhered to the principles of the 
former Assembly. 

In the fall of 1833, the Synod so far yielded to the au- 
thority of the General Assembly as to admit the Second 
Presbytery to membership. But the Synod then formed 
a new division, regardless of the recommendation of the 
Assembly. The Assembly again, in 1834, shewed a de- 
termination to carry out their measures, in sustaining the 
Second Presbytery. And to prevent further difficulty 
with the Synod of Philadelphia, they erected a new Syn- 
od, the Synod of Delaware, throwing the Second Pres- 
bytery into a new Synodical relation- 



67 

In 1835, the x\ssembl\, (the Old School having a ma- 
jority,) dissolved the Synod of Delaware, and threw the 
Second Presbytery back into the Synod of Philadelphia. 
The Synod at their meeting in the fall dissolved the Pres- 
bytery. The Assembly again, in 1836, (the New School 
again having a majority,) stood by the majority. But as 
the Synod now had a Second Presbytery, the Assembly's 
Second Presbytery was named the Third Presbytery 
of Philadelphia. The Assembly, however, at this time 
assigned geographical limits to their Presbytery, in the 
belief and general understanding that it was to terminate 
the dispute in relation to the alleged unconstitutional ex- 
istence of the Presbytery, on the ground of elective affin- 
ity. But this arrangement was of short duration ; for the 
next Assembly, being Old School, in their work of re- 
form, swept this Presbytery from existence! 

It ought not to be forgotten, that after the trial of Mr* 
Barnes, and during these contentions about elective affin- 
ity. &c. Dr. Miller, a Professor in the Theological Semi- 
nary at Princeton, wrote his famous "Letters to Presbyte* 
rians, on the present crisis in the Presbytrian Church in 
the United States." They were extensively circulated 
and read. Coming from the seat of orthodoxy, impor- 
tance was attached to them, and they exerted an influence 
— an influence, though not intended, yet injurious to the 
church. They contributed to the alarms and suspicions, 
which afterwards alienated the affection and confidence of 
ministers and people, and to the strifes which resulted in 
the schism of the church. Many good things were smoothly 
said, but in such a way as to operate wonderfully in un- 
dermining confidence in ministers, and leading to violent 
measures — such measures as even Dr. Miller did not an- 
ticipate, when thus fanning the flame — and such measures 
as he attempted afterwards, in vain, to arrest, when he 
found that some had over-acted their part, and got greatly 
in advance of himself in seeing the dangers of the church 
in "the crisis." 

Among the violent measures referred to was the "Act 
and Testimony," which will come under review in the 
next Chapter, 



(68) 



CHAPTER X. 



THE ACT AND TESTIMONY, 



The Old School party, having been in the minority in 
the Assembly for a number of years, became so restless 
in the Assembly of 1834, that they resolved upon a sys* 
tern of new measures, to gain, if possible, the ascendency, 
that they might carry their plans in the church. 

Accordingly, at the close of the Assembly of 1834, a 
small portion of that body, the most thorough-going of 
the Old School, had a meeting. As the result of their 
deliberations, they drew up the famous "Act and Testi- 
mony" which was signed by thirty-seven ministers and 
twenty-seven elders. It was designed to operate as a 
Test Act, and thus very much resembles the old Solemn 
League and Covenant. 

As it has been regarded the entering wedge to schism, 
and has exerted much influence, it ought to be preserved. 
It was addressed "to the Ministers, Eiders, and Private 
Members of the Presbyterian Church in the United 
States." It begins thus: 

"Brethren beloved in the Lord : — In the solemn 
crisis, in which our church has arrived, we are constrain- 
ed to appeal to you in relation to the alarming errors 
which have hitherto been connived at, and now at length 
have been countenanced and sustained by the acts of the 
supreme judicatory of our church. 

Constituting, as we all do, a portion of yourselves, and 
deeply concerned, as every portion of the system must be, 
in all that affects the body itself, we earnestly address 
ourselves to you, in the full belief, that the dissolution of 
our church, or what is worse, its corruption in all that 



69 

once distinguished its peculiar testimony, can, under God, 
be prevented only by you. 

From the highest judicatory of our church, we have 
for several years in succession sought the redress of our 
grievances, and have not only sought it in vain, but with 
an aggravation of the evils of which we have complain- 
ed," &c. 

The whole is too lengthy for insertion here. Its spirit 
may be judged of from the above quotation. The attempt 
was made to alarm the churches. The burden of the 
document was about "doctrine" — "discipline" — and 
"church order." It charged upon the New School the 
grossest heresies and disorders. 

It appeared in Kentucky in the Western Luminary, of 
13th August, 1834. The editor of that paper, who is an 
Old School man, said of this document — "We give it sim- 
ply as an article of news — a portion of the history of the 
times. We think it but due, however, to our brethren of 
the ministry and eldership of this region, to state that so 
far as our acquaintance extends, we know of no one who 
holds any of the doctrinal views which are justly designa- 
ted as errors in the Act and Testimony. " This docu- 
ment met the approbation of a very small number of the 
Synods or Presbyteries. Some objected to it, because 
they denied to a few ministers and elders the right of re- 
quiring the church to subscribe a new Test Act. Others 
disapproved of it, because they considered it a slander on 
the General Assembly and the Presbyterian Church. 
And many opposed it, because they regarded the measures 
proposed, in the language of the Princeton brethren, 
"eatra-constitutional and revolutionary " and designed "to 
effect the division of the Church." 

The Act and Testimony was reviewed, and severely 
censured by the Princeton Professors, in the Biblical 
Repertory, a decidedly Old School periodical, and as such, 
the organ of the party. A few extracts from their re- 
view will shew in what light they viewed this document. 
They say : 

"Had the meeting in Philadelphia, therefore, been con- 
tended to send forth their solemn testimony against error 
and disorder, and their earnest exhortation to increased 
fidelity to God and his truth ? we are sure none could v^a,* 



70 

sonably object.*' "But when it is proposed to number 
the people ; to request and urge the signing of this Testi- 
mony as a test of orthodoxy, then its whole nature and 
design is at once altered." 

"Here is one of the most serious evils of the whole 
plan. It makes one a heretic, or an abettor of heresy, 
not for error in doctrine, not for unfaithfulness in disci- 
pline, but because he may be unable to adopt an extended 
document as expressing his own opinions on a multitude 
of facts, doctrines and practical counsels. This is an as- 
sumption which ought not to be allowed. It is an act of 
gross injustice to multitudes of our soundest and best 
men ; it is the most effectual means of splitting the church 
into mere fragments, and of alienating from each other 
men who agree in doctrine, in views of order and disci- 
pline, and who differ in nothing, perhaps, but in opinion 
as to the wisdom of introducing this new League and 
Covenant." 

"Our first leading objection, then, to this document is, 
that it is not what it professes to be, a Testimony, but a 
Test." 

"Is it then true, that the highest judicatory of our 
diureh has 'countenanced and sustained' the doctrine, 
that we have no more to do with the sin of Adam than 
with the sins of any other parent — that there is no such 
thing as original sin — that man's regeneration is his own 
act — that Christ's sufferings are not truly and properly 
vicarious ? How serious the responsibility of announcing 
to the world that such is the case." "We do not believe 
it. to be true." 

"Is it to be expected that, at this time of the day, the 
Assembly would solemnly condemn all who do not hold 
the doctrine of a limited atonement?" 

Here is a developement not often made. It is taken 
for granted that "a limited atonement" is the doctrine of 
the Old School, but that the Assembly ought not to con* 
demn those who believe in a general atonement! But to 
go on with our extracts ; 

"We cannot but regard, therefore, the recommendation 
of this document, that churches and ministers consider 
certain acts of the Assembly unconstitutional, as a re- 



71 

commendation to them to renounce their allegiance to the 
church, and lo disregard their promises of obedience." 

"Division, then, is the end to which this enterprise 
leads, and to which, we doubt not it aims." Here in a 
note the writers say : "Since writing the above, we see 
that this intention is denied in the Presbyterian. We 
have heard other signers of the Act and Testimony, how- 
ever, very distinctly avow their desire to effect a division 
of the church." 

"The point now before us, however, is the true nature 
of its recommendations. We say they are extra-consti- 
tutional and revolutionary, and should be opposed by all 
those who do not believe that the crisis demands the disso- 
lution of the church." 

"We have more than once remarked, that this recom- 
mendation was designed to necessitate either the annul- 
ling of the acts of the Assembly complained of, or the 
division of the church. It was designed to make a case 
from which there could be no escape ; to assume such a 
position as would produce a state of confusion and difficult 
ty perfectly intolerable, in order that the Assembly should 
be forced either to retract or submit to have the church 
divided." [We quote from the Western Luminary, No? 
yember 19, 1834, and March 4, 1835.] 

Here the spirit of the Act and Testimony men — the 
spirit that finally triumphed among the^Old School, is 
forcibly stated by the Princeton brethren, themselves Qld 
School. They determined, "that the Assembly should be 
forced to retract, or submit to have the church divided. 19 
That is, they determined to rule the church or rend it. 

This controversy about the Act and Testimony had 
well nigh broken up the friendship of its reputed author, 
the Rev. R. J. Breckinridge, and the Princeton brethren. 
Indeed, it was regarded as something npvel, that Mr. 
Breckinridge, who in 1832 was an Elder in the Assem? 
bly, should in 1834 regard himself as the great champion 
of order and orthodoxy. But no less strange than true, 
his measures at last triumphed over the Princeton fathers, 
and hosts of others, who had never seen the dangers to 
which the church was exposed till Mr. Breckinridge 
found his way into the church ! ! 



72 

The above extracts from the Repertory will show clear- 
ly, that the Act and Testimony was not well received by 
the wisest and best men among the Old School. They 
regarded it as a Grecian horse, full of danger, though pro- 
fessedly a vow to orthodoxy. They raised a warning 
voice, like the faithful priest of Troy : 

"Aut haec in nostrosfabricata est machina muros, 
Inspectura domos, venturaque desuper urbi ; 
Aut aliquis latet error : equo ne credite, Teucri." 

Of course, it was very odious to the New School, view- 
ed by them as the entering wedge of schism. Indeed, 
the subsequent history of the church shows, that it was 
at the time fairly interpreted and fully understood. 

But to show how it was regarded by other denomina- 
tions, a few extracts are given from the Christian Specta- 
tor, a quarterly periodical, among the Congregationalists. 
The reviewer of the Act and Testimony in that Journal 
says : 

"What then is the Act and Testimony 1 It is a new 
confession of faith, or a recently invented test of ortho- 
doxy, agreed upon, subscribed, and published, by thirty- 
seven ministers, and twenty-seven elders of the Presby- 
terian church, at the close of the last General Assembly 
in Philadelphia." "The introduction does not abound in 
the qualities of conciliation, which some masters of rhet- 
oric tell us, ought to be prominent in this part of a dis- 
course. It is more in keeping with the habits of a wes- 
tern huntsman ; for it takes the beast by the horns at the 
very outset of the battle. Or, to pass by one bold stride 
from the wilderness to the ocean, these Act and Testimony 
brethren are no sooner embarked, than they nail the flag 
of nullification to the mast." 

"The subscribers of this document begin by a practical 
renunciation of their whole system ; and if their solemn 
manifesto proves any thing, it proves, that, quoad hoc, 
they are not Presbyterians. They have erected a new 
tribunal, unknown to their standards; and before this 
voluntary and irresponsible association, they arraign all 
delinquents, whether the peccant General Assembly, p: 
ministers suspected of heresy." 






73 

6, The subscribers of this document avow their fxed ad' 
herence to their standards of ecclesiastical order, while 
the very document in which they make this profession , 
i«, both in essence and action, at war with the whole sys- 
tem. They acquit themselves of all responsibility for 
the subversion of forms publicly and repeatedly ap- 
proved; while they are subverting those very forms them- 
selves. They tell us, that they are laboring for the resto- 
ration of scriptural order to their church.; and yet they 
attempt that reformation by means which contravene 
their own notions of ecclesiastical organization. They 
intend, if possible, to exclude from the church, those who 
subvert her established forms ; and yet, in compassing 
this end, they themselves perpetrate the act of subver= 
sion." "They believe that the form of government of the 
Presbyterian Church accords with the will of God, and 
deprecate every thing that changes its essential character ; 
while, in their practice, they are fast verging to Congre- 
gationalism — a form of government at which they almost 
instinctively shudder/' [Quarterly Christian Spectator, 
March, 1835.J 

The Act and Testimony was considered a document of 
little intrinsic value. Yet its relative influence proved to 
be great. It was a bold nullification measure, well calcu- 
lated to marshal every restless and belligerent spirit — to 
create a panic among the lovers of truth who were unin- 
formed, and to cause the intelligent friends of peace and 
order to mourn over an anticipated and bitter strife, and 
the most fearless heart to tremble for the integrity of the 
church and tbe honor of religion. It may indeed be ques- 
tioned, whether any document, since the days of tho 
Solemn League and Covenant, has ever proved so ruinous 
to the Presbyterian Church as the Act and Testimony. 
Here the controversy began in good earnest. These men, 
a small minority, virtually declared, that they would rule 
or rend the church; or, in the language of the Princeton 
Professors, What the Assembly should be forced either to 
retract, or submit to have the church divided.- 1 What 
was now to be done ? Must the majority consent to be 
ruled by the minority, rather than witness the sin and 
sorrow of division? Moderate Old School men, and mod- 
7 



74 



a New School mea yielded, one after another, until 
the Act and Testimony men gained the ascendency, and 
at iast the work of schism was carried forward with 
fearful despatch in the excinding acts of 1837, and the 

urn acts and ordinances of 1838, 






( 75 j 



CHAPTER XI, 



GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF 2835 



This year the General* Assembly met at Pittsburgh, 
The week before the meeting of the Assembly, the Old 
School Convention met at the same place, in obedience to 
the call of the Act and Testimony, The Convention 
party succeeded in bringing into the Assembly a majority 
of Old School men, and in controlling the body that year. 

When the Assembly met, the Convention hud a lengthy 
"Memorial" ready for their action, in it they complain- 
ed of some eight grievances of this nature, viz. : 

1, That the Assembly would not sanction a re-exami- 
nation of ministers going from orre Presbytery to another. 

2. That the Assembly would not condemn a book ir» 
respective of its author. 

Si That the Assembly had favored the elective offinvy 
principle. 

4. That the Assembly permitted the American Home 
Missionary Society to operate in the bounds of the Pres- 
byterian Church. 

5. That the Church had been too lax in the education 
of young men for the ministry. 

6. That the Plan of Union of 1801 had no: worked 
well for the Presbyterian Church. 

7. That the Plans of Union and Correspondence with 
New England and other churches were dangerous tq 
truth and order. 

8. That the General Assembly had not been sufficient- 
ly concerned for the orthodoxy of the church. 

This, in few words, is the sum of that long document. 
It was referred to a Committee. Their report was fa- 
vorable to this Memorial. The Assembly decided, that 
the Presbytery had a right to re-examine — that any 



76 

church court had a right to censure an author's book, ir- 
respective of the author, and that the ereclion of Pres- 
byteries upon the principle of elective affinity was con- 
trary to the spirit of our form of government. They 
flso ordered, that the Synod of Delaware should be dis- 
solved "at and after the meeting of the Synod of Phila- 
delphia in October next." Thus the Assembly's Second 
Presbytery was thrown back into the old Synod. 

The Assembly were unwilling to carry out the policy 
of the Memorialists in reference to Voluntary Associa- 
tions. On this subject they said: "It is not expedient to 
prohibit^ within our bounds, the operations of the Home 
Missionary Society, or of the Presbyterian Education So- 
ciety, or any other Voluntary Association not subject to 
our control." 

They were of the opinion, that it was not desirable that 
the Plan of Union of 1801 should any longer operate in 
the Presbyterian church. 

They also expressed their readiness to condemn "Pela- 
gian and Arminian errors," and exhorted all our Presby- 
teries and Synods to exercise the utmost vigilance in 
guarding against the introduction and publication of such 
pestiferous errors." 

As the Old School had the majority m this Assembly, 
nnd carried most of their measures, and as the New 
School were disposed peaceably to submit to the action of 
the Assembly, there was a cheering prospect of a better 
state of things. 



(*T) 



CHAPTER XII. 

THE FOREIGN MISSION QUESTION-ASSEMBLY OF im 



The subject of Foreign Missions came up in the 
Assembly jof 1855. and produced an unpleasant contro- 
versy. 

The American Board of Commissioners for Foreign 
Missions was organized in 1810 — a voluntary association ; 
so constituted as to enlist the co-operation of the Presby- 
terian, Congregational and Dutch Reformed Churches, 
A number of years after that, the Western Foreign Mis- 
sionary Society was formed — *an ecclesiastical society, 
tinder the control of the Synod of Pittsburgh. 

In the Assembly of 1835, the "Committee of Bills and 
Overtures" reported an overture in relation to Foreign Mis- 
sions. A Committee was appointed. They reported and 
recommended, that it was the conviction of the General 
Assembly, that the Presbyterian Church, in her "distinc- 
tive character" ought to send the Gospel to the heathen, 
and that a committee be appointed to confer with the 
Synod of Pittsburgh on the subject of the transfer of the 
Western Foreign Missionary Society to the General As- 
sembly, and report to the next Assembly. 

In the Assembly of 1835, there were two hundred and 
thirty-four members who had a right to vote. But near 
the close of the Assembly, when nearly two thirds of the 
members had left r the following, resolution was adopted . 
viz: 

"Resolved, That the Committee appointed to confer 
with the Sjnod of Pittsburgh, on the subject of the trans- 
fer of the supervision of the Western Foreign Missionary 
Society to the General Assembly, be authorized, if they 
1* 



7ft 

sftould approve of the said transfer,. to rati fy and confirm 
the same with the Synod, and report the same to the next 
General Assembly." Minutes of 1835, p. 33. 

Of this attempt, in such a way, to undermine the A- 
merican B. C. F. Missions, the New School greatly com- 
plained* 

The Committee, in the full of 1835, submitted to the 
Synod of Pittsburgh, "Terms of Agreement." They were 
accepted by the Synod. 

At the meeting of the Assembly, in 1836, these 
"Terms," ratified and confirmed, not by the Church, nor 
by the Presbyteries, nor by the General Assembly, but by 
a committee of five men, were submitted to the General 
Assembly. They were committed to Drs. Phillips and 
Skinner, and Messrs. Scovel, Dunlap and Ewing. Ths 
majority of the Committee reported favorably to 'the Terms 
of Agreement. Among other things they say : 

"It appears,, then^to your Committee, that the Assem- 
bly have entered into a solemn compact with the Synod of 
Pittsburgh, and that there remains but one righteous course 
to pursue, which is, to adopt the report of the Committee 
appointed last year, and to appoint a Foreign Missionary 
Board. To pause now, or to annul the doings of the last 
Assembly in this matter, would be obviously a. violation of 
contract, a breach of trust r and a departure from that 
good faith which should be sacredly kept between man 
and man, and especially between christian societies ; con* 
duct,, which would be utterly unworthy of this venerable 
tody and highly injurious to the Western Foreign Mis- 
sonary Society." 

They recommended, the adoption of the following reso- 
lutions, vizc.: 

"1. Resolved, That this report of the Committee, ap- 
pointed by the last General Assembly to confer with 
the Synod of Pittsburgh on the subject of a transfer of 
the Western Foreign Missionary Society to the General 
Assembly, be adopted, and that said transfer be accepted 
on the terms of agreement therein contained. 

k 2. Resolved, That the Assembly will proceed to ap- 
point a Foreign Missionary Board, the seat of whose 
aerations shall be in New York*" 






Br. Skinner, as the- minority of the Committee, pre- 
sented the following counter report, viz. : 

" Whereas, the Am. B. C. F. Missions has been connect- 
ed with the Presbyterian church from the year of its in- 
corporation, by the very elements of its existence ; and 
whereas, at the present time r the majority of the whole of 
the Board are Presbyterians ; and whereas, it is undesira- 
ble, in conducting the work of Foreign Missions, that 
there should be any collision at home or abroad : there- 
fore, 

Resolved, That it is inexpedient, that the Assembly 
should organize a separate Foreign Missionary Institu- 
tion." 

After a long debate, the plan proposed by the Com- 
mittee was rejected by a vote of 111 to 106, which ex- 
hibited a majority of five for the New School, or against 
an ecclesiastical organization. 

Against this decision, Di\ Miller offered a protest 
signed by eighty-two members of the Assembly. It was 
entered on the Minutes, and was as follows: 

"The undersigned would solemnly protest against the 
decision of the General A ssembly, whereby the report of 
the Committee of the last Genera] Assembly respecting 
the Western Foreign Missionary Society was rejected : 
for the following reasons, viz. :. 

1. Because we consider the decision of the Assembly 
in this case as an unjustifiable refusal to carry into effect 
a solemn contract with the Synod of Pittsburgh, duly 
ratified and confirmed under the authority of the last As» 
sembly. 

2. Because we are impressed with the deepest convic- 
tion r that the Presbyterian Church, in her ecclesiastical 
capacity, is bound, in obedience to the command of her 
Divine Head and Lord, to send the glorious gospel, as 
far as may be in her power, to every creature; and we 
consider the decision of the Assembly in this case as a 
direct refusal to obey this command, and to pursue one 
of the great objects for which the church was founded. 

3. Because it is our deliberate persuasion that a large 
part of the energy, zeal and resources of the Presbyterian 
church cannot be called into action in the Missionary 



so 

cause, without the establishment of a Missionary Board 
by the General Assembly. It is evident that no other 
ecclesiastical organization, by fragments of the church, 
can be formed, which will unite, satisfy, and call forth 
the zealous co-operation of those in every part of the 
church who wish for a general Presbyterian Board. 

4v Because,- while a majority of the Assembly acknowl- 
edge that they had a Board which fully met all the wants 
and wishes of themselves and those who sympathized with 
them, they refused to make such a decision as would ac- 
cord to us a similar and equal privilege ; thereby as we 
conceive, refusing that which would have been only just 
and equal, and rejecting a plan which would have greatly 
extended the missionary spirit, and exerted a reflex bene-* 
ficial influence on the churches thus indulged with a Board 
agreeable to their views. 

5. Because to all these considerations, urged with a 
solemnity and affection, the majority of the Assembly 
were deaf, and have laid us under the necessity of pro- 
testing against their course,, and of complaining that we 
are denied a most reasonable, and to us, precious privi- 
lege, and of lamenting that we are laid under the necessi- 
ty of resorting to plans of ecclesiastical organization f 
complicated, inconvenient, and much more adapted, on a 
variety of accounts, to interfere with ecclesiastical har- 
mony than the proposed Board could have been." 

A committee was appointed by the Assembly to answer 
this protest. Dr. Peters, the Chairman, presented the 
following, which was adopted by the Assembly, and en- 
tered on the Minutes, viz. : 

"In answer to the protest of the minority of the Gen- 
eral Assembly, on the subject of Foreign Missions, the 
majority regard it as due to the churches and the friends 
3f missions generally, to state some of the grounds on 
which they have declined to carry into effect the arrange- 
ment adopted and reported by the Committee of the last 
General Assembly, in regard to the West. For. Missionary 
Society. 

We are of opinion, 

1. That the powers intended to be conferred upon the 
above Committee, by the last General Assembly, to ratify 



82 

and confirm the transfer of the said Society from the 
Synod of Pittsburgh to the General Assembly on such 
terms as the said Committee might approve, are altogeth- 
er unusual and unwarranted; and especially that it was 
indiscreet and improper for that Assembly to attempt- to 
confer such unlimited powers for such a purpose, in the 
existing state of our churches, upon so small a Committee, 
and that too on the last day of the sessions of the As* 
sembiy, when more than one half of the enrolled mem- 
bers of the body had obtained leave of absence, and had 
already returned to their homes. 

2. That it was unwarrantable and improper for the 
above Committee, in the exercise of the extraordinary pow- 
ers proposed to be conferred on them, to incorporate in 
their agreement with the Synod of Pittsburgh the condi- 
tion, that the superversion of the Missions of the Mission- 
ary Board intended to be organized should never be aliena- 
ted by the General Assembly, thus endeavoring to bind ir- 
reversably all future Assemblies by the stipulations of 
that Committee. 

3. It is, therefore, our deep conviction that it was the 
duty of the Assembly to resist the unwarrantable and ex* 
traordinary powers of the above Committee, and to reject 
the unreasonable condition of the contract with the Syn- 
od of Pittsburgh. 

4. It is our settled belief that the church is one by Divine 
constitution, and that the command is of universal obliga- 
tion — "Let there be no divisions among you," and that 
whatever advantages or disadvantages may have resulted 
from the division of the church into numerous denomina- 
tions, with conflicting opinions, it cannot be our duty as 
Christians, to perpetuate and extend these divisions, by in- 
corporating them in our arrangements to spread the gospel 
in heathen lands. We cannot, therefore, regard the division 1 
of the Assembly, in this case, as a refusal to obey the com- 
mand of the Head of the Church to preach the gospel to eve- 
ry creature. That command, as we understand it, is not to 
the Presbyterian church in her distinctive ecclesiastical 
capacity, but to the whole church, to the collective body of 
Christ's disciples of every name. It was that they may 
the more effectually oley the above command, by uniting 



82 

with Christians of other denominations in the noble work 
of foreign missions, that the Assembly declined to carry 
into effect the proposed organization, restricted to the Pres* 
byterian church. 

5. We do not agree with the protestants in the opinion, 
that the resources of any part of the Presbyterian church 
"cannot be called into action in the missionary cause with- 
out the establishment of a Missionary Board by the Gen- 
eral Assembly." The history of missionary operations 
in this and other countries, furnishes ample evidence that 
the energy and zeal of Christians in the spread of the 
gospel are much more effectually enlisted, and their liber- 
ality greatly increased by more expanded organizations, 
which overstep the limits of sects, and the bond of whose 
union is the one great object of spreading the glorious gos- 
pel of the blessed God. It is our settled belief, that the 
societies formed on these principles, and including differ- 
ent denominations of Christians, are actually performing, 
as the proxies of the church, in the work of missions, that 
which the church, on account of her divisions, can per- 
form in no other way so well. They appear to us to have 
embraced the harmonizing principle, which is destined ul- 
timately to re-unite the churches, and make them one, as 
it was in the beginning, and will be in the end. 

6. While the majority of the Assembly acknowledge 
their unabated confidence in the American Board of Com- 
missioners for Foreign Missions, as fully meeting our wish- 
es, and affording a safe and open channel through which 
all our churches may, as consistent Presbyterians, con- 
vey their contributions to the cause of Foreign Missions, 
we do not regard ourselves as having denied, by the decis- 
ion protested against, to the minority the privilege of con- 
ducting their Missionary operations with entire freedom, 
on any other plan which they may prefer. But we think 
it unreasonable for them to ask us to form, and to com- 
plain of our not forming, by a vote of the General As- 
sembly, an organization, the principles of which we do 
not approve. We do not ask of them to assume the re- 
sponsibilities of the plan which we prefer, and we cannot 
regard ourselves as chargeable with unkindness or injus- 
tice, in having refused to assume the responsibilities of the 



83 

plan which they prefer. If we cannot agree to unite in 
the same organization, for the same purpose, it appears to 
us manifestly proper, that each party should bear the re- 
sponsibility of its own chosen plan of operations ; and if 
joixv brethren cannot so far commend their principles, as 
to extend their ecclesiastical organizations beyond those 
^fragments of the church" of which they speak, they sure* 
ly ought not to complain of us, "if those in every part of 
the church, who wish for a general Presbyterian Board," 
remain dissatisfied. We would respectfully ask whether 
£hey ought not to charge their embarrassment, in this 
respect, to the plan which they have adopted, rather than 
to those who have chosen, on their own responsibility, in 
the fear of God, to conduct their missionary operations on 
other principles. If. therefore, the minority of the As- 
sembly should hereafter judge themselves under "the ne? 
cessity of resorting to plans of ecclesiastical organization," 
which shall "interfere with ecclesiastical harmony," the 
majority cannot regard themselves as responsible for such 
results. The settled belief of the majority of the Assem- 
bly is, that the operations of the American Board of 
Commissioners for Foreign Missions, with its numerous 
auxiliaries, both ecclesiastical and voluntary, within the 
bounds of the Presbyterian church, present the best ar- 
rangement for the promotion of the cause of Missions by 
our churches ; and it was to prevent the ecclesiastical con? 
flicts and divisions which have resulted from the opera- 
tions of other similar organizations, that they have though!; 
it their duty to decline the organization proposed. They 
have made their decision for the purpose, and with the 
hope of securing and promoting the union in the mission* 
ary work which has so happily existed in former years. 
With these views and hopes they commend the cause 
of Missions, and their solemn and conscientious decis* 
ion, to the blessings of God, and pray for the peace of Je* 
rusalem." 

From the foregoing, it will be seen, that the majority 
of the General Assembly preferred the A. B. C. F. Mis- 
sions to an ecclesiastical organization. Contemplating the 
success of that noble institution, it was not strange. It 
even commended itself to the respect of the most rigid 



S4 

friends of ecclesiastical Boards. In January, 1837, the 
Hon. Walter Lowrie, an Old School man, and the Corres- 
ponding Secretary of the West. For. Missionary Society, 
said : "It has been my privilege, wherever I have been 
called to speak, to state our feelings toward the Am. B. G, 
Foreign Missions. For eighteen years I have been famil- 
iar with the operations of that Board. And not one of 
their missionaries has gone to the heathen world, labored 
or died there, whose progress I have not marked with great 
interest, and followed with my prayers. I have always 
cherished great confidence in that Board ; I hope God will 
prosper it abundantly, and enlarge its operations, until, 
with the aid of other societies, they shall fill the earth 
with the knowledge of God. We think we can feel thus, 
and yet prefer another organizntion." See Journal and 
Luminary, Feb. 16, 1837. 

It will not, however, be forgotten, that in 1836, the Mis- 
sionary question was the bone of contention — the great 
exciting subject. Because the majority of the Assembly 
would not give up their partiality for the Am. B. C. F. 
Missions, and have the Assembly, and through that body, 
the church committed to an ecclesiastical organization, 
there was great complaint. Or because, in this matter, 
the majority were unwilling to be controlled by the minor- 
ity, there was universal dissatisfaction among the Old 
School. The Southern Christian Herald, an Old School 
paper, said : "One of the best of the present indications is 
the sensitiveness manifested at the Assembly's decision on 
the Foreign Missionary question, although this decision 
has no tendency to corrupt the church." Their "sensi- 
tiveness" on this question was greater than about doctrines. 

The Editor of the Western Presbyterian Herald of Au* 
gust 11, 1836, said : "Unless we separate amicably, the 
dissentions which have arisen over the Home Missionary 
Society will continue to increase until they produce a vio- 
lent disruption." "But this unhappy contrariety of opin- 
ion is not confined to the subject of Domestic Missions. 
Whatever opinions are held on the subject of irresponsi- 
ble associations, or ecclesiastical supervision and control, 
they are applicable to the Foreign as well as the Domes? 
tic Missionary worko" 



85 

According this paper, therefore, the "dissensions^ over 
the missionary work were the causes that led to the "vij 
lent disruption." 

In 1836, the Biblical Repertory, aa Oid School Quar- 
terly, reviewing the action of the Assembly on the Mis- 
sionary question said: "Thus ended this important de- 
cision. We fear the result has inflicted a deeper wound 
on the prosperity of our church than she has suffered for 
a long time.' ? 

The Missionary question, then, was certainly, accor- 
ding to leading Old School men, the great matter of con- 
test between the parties. And had the majority, in 1836, 
consented to let the Old School control the church, it is 
highly probable, that the "dissensions* ''Which led to "a 
olent disruption" would have been hushed. 
8 



!>2~ 



(86) 



CHAPTER XIII. 

MR. BARNES 1 CASE AGAIN— SECRET CIRCULAR. 



The case of Mr, Barnes came up again in the Assem- 
bly of 1836. The year before, Dr. Junkin tabled char- 
ges against him before his Presbytery. They were as 
follows, viz.: 

"1. That sin consists in voluntary action. 

2. That Adam (before and after the fall) was ignorant 
of his moral relations to such a degree, that he did not 
know the consequences of his sin would or should reach 
any further than to natural deafh. 

3. That unregenerate men are able to keep the com? 
mandments and convert themselves to God. 

4. That faith is an act of the mind, and not a princi* 
pie, and in itself imputed for righteousness. " 

He was charged with denying, 

4 '5. That God entered into covenant with Adam, con- 
stituting him a federal or covenant head and representa? 
live of all his natural descendants. 

6. That the first sin of Adam is imputed to his poste- 
rity. 

7. That mankind are guilty, i. e., liable to punishment 
on account of the sin of Adam. 

8. That Christ suffered the proper penalty of the law, 
as the vicarious substitute of his people, and thus took 
away legally their pardon. 

9. That the righteousness, i. e., the active obedience of 
Christ to the law is imputed to his people for their justifi- 
cation ; so .that they are righteous in the eye of the law, 
and therefore justified." 

)0, Mr. Barnes also teaches, in opposition to the 



87 

standards, that justification is simply pardon." [Barnes 1 
TrktT, page 105 and onwards.] 

The proofs relied on by Dr. Junkin were all quoted 
from Barnes' Notes on the Romans, a work every one 
can see for himself. 

The Presbytery decided, that the charges were not sus- 
tained. Dr. Junkin appealed from their decision to the 
Synod of Philadelphia, which met at York, Pa., October, 
1835. 

The case occupied tho attention of Synod about a 
week. Mr. Barnes was regarded as a leading man a- 
mong those who were charged with holding a general 
atonement, &e. It was pretty well understood, that if he 
went overboard, so would Drs. Beecher, Skinner, Cox, 
Peters. McAuley, and hosts of others. It was, therefore, 
a case that excited great interest. Besides, Mr.- Barnes 
was greatly beloved by his friends, and was a minister, 
whose gentlemanly deportmrnt, whose piety and talents 
commanded the respect even of the Old School. During 
the progress of the trial, Dr. John Breckinridge declared: 
"I must say, that I never saw a more calm, self-possessed 
or dignified deportment in any individual, than the accus- 
ed party has exhibited before us this night." Trial, page 
74. 

On the subject of Mr. Barnes' Heresy, it appeared that 
the Old School were far from being agreed among them- 
selves. The Princeton Reviewer of the Notes on the 
Romans, in the Biblical Repertory, did not regard Mr. 
Barnes as materially wrong on Imputation, generally con- 
sidered his greatest heresy. The Reviewer, though hos- 
tile to Mr. Barnes, says: "Notwithstanding all the ob- 
jections urged against this doctrine, and the cbioquy 
which he endeavors to fasten upon it, Mr. Barnes teaches 
. it to its full extent. On page 122 he says: 'Men are 
indubitably affected by the sin of Adam, e. g., by being 
born with a corrupt disposition, with loss of righteousness, 
and subjection to pain and wo.' Here are evils," continues 
the Reviewer, "indescribably great and dreadful, which 
are declared to come on all men prior to all agency and 
concurrence of their own, for a sin committed some thou- 
sands of years before their birth, and beyond their con- 



88 

trol. Farther than this who would wish to go? Farther 
the Scriptures, the Reformers, our own Standards, and 
the great body of old orthodox divines do not go." 

Dr. McDowell, a prominent Old School man, said, dur- 
ing the trial; "I can vote with a good conscience, that Mr. 
Barnes is guilty of holding great and dangerous errors, 
but not that he holds fundamental errors. I believe that 
he holds to the doctrine of total depravity as fully and 
firmly as any man in this house, and that he believes this 
depravity to be derived from our connection with Adam. 
I believe that he holds that there is no salvation for a sin- 
ner but through Jesus Christ, and that he is saved solely 
on the ground of the merits of Christ, an.d that he be- 
comes interested in these merits exclusively by faith- 
And I believe farther, that he holds to the absolute neces- 
sity of the influences of the Holy Spirit to convert and 
sanctify the soul. I have long known that he differed 
from me in his mode of explaining some of these points, 
but I am satisfied that on the great and fundamental doc- 
trines of our religion, he preaches in this way." Trial, 
page 255. 

The majority of the Synod, however, voted against Mr. 
Barnes, adopting the following, resolutions : 

"1. That in view of the proof presented to Synod, and 
of the whole case, the decision of the (Assembly's) Sec- 
ond Presbytery of Philadelphia, in the case of the charges 
of said George Junkin against the said Albert Barnes be, 
and the same is hereby reversed, as contrary to truth and 
righteousness, and the Appeal declared to be sustained. 

2. That some of the errors alleged in the charges to be 
held by the said Albert Barnes, are fundamental ; and all 
of them contrary to the standards of the Presbyterian 
Church in the United States, and that they do contravene 
the system of truth therein taught, and set forth in the 
Word of God. 

3. That the said Albert Barnes be, and he hereby is 
suspended from the exercise of all the functions proper to 
the gospel ministry, until he shall retract the errors here- 
by condemned, and give satisfactory evidence of repent- 

: >." 
Mr. Barnes appealed from this decision, of Synod to 



m 

the General Assembly. Thus the case came before the 
Assembly of 1836. Dr. Junkin, the prosecutor, was 
heard at length. Mr. Barnes then made his "noble de- 
fence." Ail who wanted to ©peak, for or against, were 
heard. And when the final question was put, "Sustain 
or not sustain the appeal of Mr. Barnes ?" the vote 9too<i 
thus: For sustaining the appeal 134— Not sustaining 96. 

The following resolution was then offered : 

"Resolved, That the decision of the Synod of Phi- 
ladelphia, suspending the* Rev* Albert Barnes from all 
the functions proper to the gospel ministry be, and it is 
hereby reversed." 

When the vote was taken on this resolution, there were 
"Ayes 145 — Noes 77." Thus Mr. Barnes was honorably 
acquitted and restored to the ministry by this large ma- 
jority of the General Assembly. 

Dr. Miller, though voting for the restoration of Mr* 
Barnes, offered a resolution, the substance of which was, 
that while the Assembly will not condemn the man / .. 
will condemn his book* This was rejected bv a vote of 
122 to 109, 

It is also true, that among those who voted to acqmf 
Mr. Barnes?, there was not perfect uniformity of senti- 
ment. Some declared that Mr. Barnes' sentiments were 
theirs, and that they approved his phraseology. Others 
said, that if Mr. Barnes was condemned, that they, holding 
that some of his views were correct, would also be con- 
demned. Dr. Peters- said r "When I heard of the sentence 
of his suspension, 1 regarded it as a blow struck at one 
half of the Presbyterian Church. I shall not vote to re- 
store him on the ground of toleration; he has a right to 
be a member in our connexion." 

Whether or not Drs. Peters, Skinner, and oihers concur 
with Mr. Barnes in all his views, is uncertainv But it is 
certain that the Assembly did not endorse Mr. Barnes' 
Book. Such a thing they would not do for any man's 
system. In their answer to the Protest of Dr. PhiilJps 
and others, they say t 

"1. That by their decision they do not intend to, arid 
do not, in fact, make themselves responsible for all the 
phraseology of Mr. Barnes; some of which is not suf* 
8* * 



90 

ffeiently guarded and is liable to. be misunderstood; and 
which we doubt not Mr- Barnes> with reference to his 
usefulness, and the peace of the church, will modify so as 
to prevent, as far as may be, the possibility of misconcep- 
tion. 

2. Much less do the Assembly adopt as doctrines, con- 
sistent wilh our standards, and to be tolerated in our 
church, the errors alleged by the prosecutor, as contained 
in the Book on the Romans. It was a question of fact, 
whether the errors alleged are contained in the Book, and 
by the laws of exposition, in the conscientious exercise 
of their own rights and duties, the Assembly have come 
to the conclusion that the Book does not teach the errors 
charged." 

The failure of the Old School, in the Assembly of 
1S36, in carrying out their measures, was signal. They 
felt it deeply. They had hoped, by the condemnation of 
Mr. Barnes, to awe the New School party, and thus bring. 
them into complete subordination, and that they would find 
little difficulty afterwards in the control of the whole 
church. They also hoped to have the church committed 
by ccclesiastiaal organization, to an Assembly's Board of 
Foreign Missions, and that then there would not be much 
difficulty in calling off the patronage of the Presbyterian 
church from the A. H. M. Society, the Presbyterian 
Education Society, the American Tract Society, the A- 
merican Sunday School Union &c, when funds were 
needed to carry forward the ecclesiastical Boards of the 
church. 

It was evident, before the close of the Assembly, that 
the Old School did not intend to submit to the General 
Assembly, if they were denied the control of the church- 
Accordingly, on the rising of the Assembly, they had a 
meeting for deliberation. As the meeting was private, 
the whole of their transactions has never perhaps come 
before the public. The following statements in reference 
to that meeting were made soon after: viz. 

" 1. It was requested that all who did not sympathise 
with them should retire — a request which was certainly 
proper, and against which no one could take exceptions. 

2L That the subject of a division of the church was 



91 

then agitated, but that this was- regarded as premature and 
unwise. 

3. That the measure of a new Act and Testimony, 
and another Convention to be publicly called to meet in 
Philadelphia, in 1837, just before the meeting of the As- 
sembly, was proposed. To this it was objected, that the 
trial had been made ^ that these public measures had rous- 
ed the other party, and had been the occasion of their 
own defeat ; and that some less public mode of action 
would, in existing circumstances, best subserve their pur- 
poses, 

4. That it was then proposed that a Committee should 
be appointed to correspond secretly with their friends, to 
consult them on the proper measures to be pursued, and to 
suggest that- a Convention should assemble in Philadelphia 
in 1S37, in the week before the meeting of the Assembly.' 7 
See Journal and Luminary, Oct. 6, 1838. 

A committee of ten was appointed to correspond, and 
to carry out the measures of the meeting. This com- 
rnittee, in due time, sent out what was called the "Secret 
Circular" to all who were believed to be of their party,, 
and not to the whole church or all her ministers. By. 
September it fell into wrong hands, and found its way 
into the papers. It may be seen in the Journal and Lu- 
minary, Sept. 29, 1836. The Circular complained great- 
ly of the As-sembly — its action in the case of Mr. Barnes,. 
the Missionary question, &c. It then closes with a num- 
ber of enquiries such as — "And now, Dear Brother, in 
view of the whole subject, we ask you, what ought to be 
done t" 

This document was clothed in cautious phraseology- 
It seemed desirous of information. It was designed to 
feel the pulse of the party, at the same time inviting crim- 
ination, and intelligence in reference to those who belong- 
ed to the opposite party. It looked to ulterior measures, 
the division of the Church. The committee, in their let- 
ter, inquire if it is possible, under the circumstances, that 
the parties can remain together. It was evidently expect- 
ed that all who were addressed would answer in the nega- 
tive. 

The Secret Circular was sent out in July. The answers 



62 

given encouraged the committee to take strong ground. 
In September they issued a pamphlet of forty pages — "An 
sddress to Ministers and Elders and members of the Pres- 
byterian church in the United States." All disguise was 
thrown off. They declared that the church must be di- 
vided. They said: "We are a divided church- -as really 
divided as though we were called by different names and 
existed under different organizations. The schism has 
a i ready come." 

In this same "Address," speaking of the New School 
party, which was then a majority, they say, "Whatever 
else may be dark, this is clear, we cannot continue in the 
same body. We are not agreed, and it-is in vain to at- 
tempt to walk together. In someway or other, therefore, 
these men (the New School) must be separated from us*'* 
Address, page 40. 

The conduct of this committee, as well as some other*, 
has been severely censured by the Constitutional party. 
Dr. Phillips, the chairman of the committee, and one other 
member had rather recently come into the Presbyterian? 
Church from the Seceders, or some such rigid sect. Dr. 
Junkln, the prosecutor of Mr. Barnes, and Mr. Engles, the 
Editor of the Presbyterian, the organ of the Old School 
party, were not raised m the Presbyterian church, but 
came inte the church from a foreign body. It was deem- 
ed very indecorous for them to complain of "foreign in~ 
fluence" and of the Congregationalists coming into the 
Presbyterian church. It was considered very officious in 
them, that they should', among their first acts, endeavor to 
excite suspicions and whisperings, and really demand that 
one half of the church should be turned out — "in seme 
way or other separated from us." 

Ileavy censure also fell on three other members of the 
committee — Rev. Messrs. Breckinridge, McDowell and 
Mc Par land — one a Professor in the Theological Seminary 
at Princeton, another Secretary and General Agent of the 
Assembly's Board of Missions, and the third Secretary 
and General Agent of the Assembly's Board of Educa- 
tion. It was urged that they were salaried officers of the 
church and not of a party ; that the Assembly, when it 
made or sanctioned the appointments, did it without any 






expectation that they would engage in an enterprise to 
dismember the church. It was stated, that these three 
gentlemen were sustained from the funds of the church at 
an annual expense of not less than six thousand dollars, 
and that the appropriation was not made to enable them 
to revolutionize the body that employed them. 

The Old School party, by this time, had assumed a sort 
of politico-religious organization". They advocated and 
held conventions. They sent out among the churches 
Addresses, Circulars, Speeches and extra Newspapers in 
great quantities. They established presses at different 
points, many of which could not be sustained by the 
merits of the cause. Individuals have given as high as 
one hundred dollars at a time, and individual churches 
hundreds of dollars, to sustain certain papers in this 
work. 






(94) 



CHAPTER XIV. 



POLICY OF THE TWO PARTIES IN REFERENCE TO 
THE DIVISION OF THE CHURCH. 



The parties differed entirely in their policy during the 
interval between the rising of the Assembly in 183G and 
the meeting in 1837. The Old School party were for the 
division of the church, and the New School against it. 
This part of the history of the church ought to he pre- 
served. A few statements from documentary evidence 
will suffice. 

In 1834, the Act and Testimony men were only a part 
of the Old School. It would be unfair to attribute their 
designs to the whole party, at that period. These men, 
however, were understood by their own party to be aim- 
ing at the dismemberment of the church. The Prince- 
ton Professors, in reviewing, in the Biblical Repertory, the 
Act and Testimony, say : "Division, then, is the end to 
which this enterprise leads, and at which, we doubt not it 
aims." This, however, was denied, in the Presbyterian, 
by one of the signers. But the Reviewers say : "We 
have, heard other signers of this Act and Testimony, 
however, very distinctly avow their desire to effect a di- 
vision of the church." 

It was not, however, till 1836, that the Old School party 
generally could be brought up to devisive measures. The 
party's committee, in their "Address," came out very 
boldly. They said : "Whatever else may be dark, this 
is clear, we cannot continue in the same body. We are 
not agreed, and it is in vain to attempt to walk together. 
In some way or other, therefore, these men must be separa- 
ted from ws." Page 40. 



95 

This was the policy advocated by the Editors of the re- 
ligious papers, under the control of the Old School. 

The Editor of the Western Presbyterian Herald, (16th 
June, 1836,) writing from Pittsburgh, says: "But a little 
while ago, we would have heard of division almost with 
horror: now it is the subject of common conversation ia 
almost every circle." 

This Editor, week after week, came out manfully ia 
favor of division. He says : "We are of opinion that, in 
the actual state of the case, formal division is not only in- 
evitable, but is desirable/' "We set out to illustrate the 
necessity, and under the present painful but unavoidable 
circumstances, the desirableness of the ultimate division 
of our church by this simple idea, that we constitute al- 
ready two distinct, widely separated, and nearly equal 
parties." W. P. Herald, July 21, 1836. 

"The practical question, how shall we divide, is certain- 
ly one of great difficulty. We suppose that this is the 
reason why the division of the Presbyterian Church has 
not occurred before this time." "This much is clear, that 
nothing should be done hastily, violently, in bad temper, 
or without ample conference among all concerned." "We 
cannot relinquish the hope, that when the subject shall 
have been fully considered, the necessity of separation 
will be seen to be so imperious, and its propriety will be 
so obvious, that the great body of the church will concur 
in some mode of amicable division." "We trust that 
none will secede ; let us all do what we can to rouse the 
church." W. P. Herald, August 18th, 1836. 

in the same number, after hoping that the next As? 
sembly would give to the Old School their desired prepon- 
derance, he says: "But if this be not so, perhaps some 
peaceable mode of separation may be adopted. Let us 
wait patiently and prayerfully to see. Should not even 
this be done, but the next Assembly have a decided ma- 
jority of the New School, ready to pursue the policy and 
adhere to the principles of the last Assembly, then we 
may conclude, that the time for separation has, beyond a 
doubt, arrived, and separate organizations of Synods, or 
violent disruption of the body, by the orthodox planting 
themselves upon the constitution, declaring themselves the 



church, and excommunicating the errorists, will probably 
ensue. " 

In the fall of 1836, the Old School party began to hope, 
from the action of the Presbyteries and Synods, that, in* 
the next Assembly, they would have a majority. After 
this, the Editors of their papers said but little about an 
"amicable division." They seemed lo anticipate a ma- 
jority — strength enough to make a division that would suit 
themselves. The Editor of the VV. P. Herald, (3d Nov. 
1836,) speaking as though division were certain, says : 
"As to which way the work will go, surely when in- 
truders (meaning the New School) have disturbed our house, 
and will neither come to order, nor quietly leave us, upon 
mutual agreement, we will put them out as soon as we are 
strong enough ; and the signs of the times are beginning 
to intimate, that this may be sooner than any of us ex- 
pected a little while ago." 

Again he says : "Should there be such a strength of 
orthodox men in the next Assembly as to prove the sound- 
ness of the great majority of the church, we take it for 
granted that the body will commence, in good earnest, a 
system of reform that will soon clear our church of those 
who have no right to a place in it. Should there be a 
majority of those who favor error in the next Assembly, 
and thus the majority appear against the orthodox once 
more, we see not what hope of reform will remain ; and 
in some form or other the alternative of division must be 
taken." W. P. Herald, December 29, 1836. 

It will be seen here "which way the work was to go." 
The church was to be cleared of those who had "no right 
to a place in it." Drs. Phillips, Junkin, Engles, &c. only 
a few years before coming into the Presbyterian church 
from foreign bodies, Seceders, &c. are to drive out " in- 
truders" — scores and hundreds of minietsrs and people 
who were born and educated in the Presbyterian church! 

It will be seen, when quotations are made from Old 
School papers, with what complacency they appropriate 
to themselves the terms — " the orthodox" — " We, the ortho- 
dox." But it must be borne in mind, that the other party 
did not allow them an exclusive right to this modest 
claim. They contended that, according to the Book of 



. m 

Gm, and the Confession of Faith, and the decisions of 
the Assembly, they too were "the orthodox." 

It will also be seen why the Old School are often called 
"Reformers." They often speak of " Reform," and call 
their measures "reform acts." They were sensible, how- 
ever, of the incongruity of the names "Old School" and 
"Reformers ," and have not generally relished the latter. 

But we return to our extracts. "Us (the Convention^) 
motto will no doubt be, Reform if possible — division only 
as an alternative. And that division, if necessary, such 
doubtless as to show that the orthodox are the true Pres- 
byterian party, and those whom thev mav leave or expek 
only so in name." W. P. Herald, Feb. 2, 1837. 

The same policy was advocated by the Editor of the 
Southern Christian Herald, an Old School paper. In 1838, 
he says : "That the controversy 13 more painful to the 
orthodox than to their opponents, who exclaim against it 
so incessantly and so loudly, is proved by the fact, that 
they (the Old School) are so anxious for a separation, as 
well to get rid of it, as to testify to the truth, while their most 
active opponents revile them more for a movement with 
this view, than they do for^t continuance of the contro- 
versy itself." 

in 1836, after the Convention of 1837 had been deter- 
mined on, the Presbyterian, the organ of the Old School 
party, advocated division. A correspondent cf that pa- 
per, in speaking of the object of the Convention, said 
"Let it be distinctly understood, that the precise object for 
which it is called, is to effect a division of the Church, and 
to deliberate on the manner of accomplishing this great 
and noble work." 

Not only did the Editors of their papers advocate di- 
vision, but the same policy was advocated in their Con- 
ventions. In 1836, a writer in the Presbyterian, said to 
be Mr. Musgrave, of Baltimore, a member of the Assem- 
bly of that year, and of the secret meeting at the close 
of the Assembly, said, in reference to that meeting : "The 
question was anxiously and solemnly discussed, in the 
meetings of the party — What is to be dons! Many re- 
plied, 'let us immediately separate.' Others said, 'let us 
call a .Convention, for the purpose of more general con- 
sultation and united action/ If the first named propose 
9 



98 



Had been put to vote, 1 have good reason for believing, 
that two thirds would have answered. 'let us separate.' " 

In the Old School Convention of 1837, Dr. Junkin, who 
ought to know, said; ''That convention never would have 
been called, but for the purpose of separating the Pelagians 
(the Dr's name for the New School) from the sound part 
of the church." 

The Assembly of 1837, after the excision, in their Pas- 
toral Letter, say : "Discerning men have perceived, for a 
number of years, that the affairs of our beloved church 
v ere hastening to a crisis, and when the members of the 
present Assembly came together, the state o( the parties 
was such, as to make it manifest that a division of the 
church was the most desirable object that could be ef- 
fected." 

The Old School, or rather the New Basis Assembly of 
1838, after the schism had occurred, in their Pastoral Let- 
ter;, say : "The last General Assembly acted under the 
conviction, that the only possible way to secure peace was 
by the separation of the parties in our church." They 
say certain measures were adopted "to effect this separaf 
tton." And for themselves they say, "that they rejoice* 
that this separation is thus far effected," 

The policy of the New School was very different. Du- 
ring this protracted controversy, the Editors of the Old 
School papers were in the habit of sneering at the South- 
ern Religious Telegraph, Cincinnati Journal, and other 
New School papers, because they opposed the division of 
the church, and urged that the parties should let their mod- 
eration be known of all men. 

A writer in the W. P. Herald, July 7, 1836, calls the 
Southern Religious Telegraph "a professedly neutral pa? 
per.'* He says of the Editor : "He has labored assidu- 
ously to persuade the chinches that they were warring a- 
bout words." 

A writer in the W. P. Herald, July 28, 1836, says: 
"New School men, from the beginning, declared thai there 
v'is no material difference between them and the standards 
of the church and their Old School brethren." 

Dr. Wilson, says : "Among those who have shut out 

the light from the people, by professed neutrality, and the 

t of no difference, 1 consider the Editors of the Southern 



Religious Telegraph and Cincinnati Journal, as most : 
spicuous." W. P. Herald, July 19, 1837. Dr. Wilson, 
it will be admitted on all hands, is a good witness. Well, 
here he represents the opponents of his party as opposed 
to controversy and division, crying "nerutality" and i6 no_ 
difference." 

A correspondent of the W. P* Herald, July 26, 1838, 
represents the whole Anti-reform party as opposed :o 
measures tending lo division. He says : "The time has 
not yet passed the recollection of many, when these two 
brethren— [Editors of the Journal and Telegraph] — in 
common with the New School fraternity, locked up in the 
most profound neutrality, were excessively bitter in their 
opposition to all controversy and strife, recommending to 
their dissatisfied brethren earnest prayer,'' &c. 

In 1836, some valuable numbers appeared in the Phila- 
delphia Observer, a New School paper, over the signature 
of "An enemy to Schism," whilst the Philadelphia Pres- 
byterian, an Old School paper, was taking the ground that 
schism was no sin. 

About the beginning of the year 1887, Rev. Mr. While, 
of South Carolina, a Constitutional Presbyterian, in a se- 
ries of published letters, remonstrated against all divisive 
measures. His arguments were such as were generally 
urged by the Anti-reform party, stigmatized as New 
School. He said the result would be — Disaffection, heart- 
burnings and personal ill-will among christians. — Separa- 
tion of families and churches in their places of worship — 
Dissolution of the pastoral relation— Destruction of minis- 
terial intercourse and usefulness, &c. 

In justice to many of the Old School party, it oog! i to 
be stated, that they were opposed to division. Or' this 
number in 1833 was Br. Miller. In his Letters to Pres- 
byterians, he says : "Our body would be sundered into at 
least four or five parties. Synods would be divided into 
several parts. Presbyteries would be rent in pieces. Con- 
gregations would be found, in a multitude of cases, to be 
made up of members of different sentiments, and, of course, 
be severed into two or three sections, neither of which 
would be able to sustain the regular ministration of the 
gospel. Controversies also without end, respecting church 
property, would probably be engendered ; unhallowed pas- 



100 



skrns would be excited, friends would be separated, fami- 
painfully divided, the Saviour would be cmeiied afresh, 
«nd put to an open shame among his professed disciples ; 
and Zion would be bleeding and dishonored in the sight of 
an unbelieving world : — and all this for what? Only to 
remain apart for a little while, to make work for bitter 
repentance. " And again said the Dr. : "My voice is not 
for division, but/or peace and continued union" 

But the peace party among the leading Reformers was 
small. And their remonstrances were as unavailing as 
those of the Anti-reform party, in arresting the torrent of_ 
innovation and revolution that was gathering over the 
church. 

Thus stood the two. parties in 1836, when the New 
School were in the majority. Thus they stood during tha^ 
year*, and till the meeting of the Assembly of 1837, 



( 101 ) 






CHAPTER XV. 



OLD SCHOOL CONVENTION OF 1837. 



This Convention, called by the Committee of the Old 
School party in the Assembly in 1836, met in Philadel- 
phia about a week before the meeting of the General As- 
sembly. There were more than one hundred members 
in attendance. 

Thi first measure proposed in the Convention was, some 
action in reference to "cemxin judicatories" charged by 
common fame with heresies and disorders. The Conven- 
tion went into a sort of ex parte trial of certain bodies. 
Common fame was the principal witness. The members 
were invited to retail such reports as had reached them. 
Various rumors were communicated. And though the 
parties accused were not represented, and could make ii;: 
defence, yet they were soon condemned. 

The Convention, however, were not agreed as to the 
plan which they should propose for the Assembly's adop- 
tion. Dr. Blythe suggested the plan of citation, with a 
view to excision. He thought the course pursued by the ' 
Synod of Kentucky, in the case of the Cumberland Pres- 
byterians, the proper one. He said : "Thirty-three or 
four years ago, the Synod of Kentucky knew it to be 
difficult to try any man for heresy; but they appointed a 
Commission to visit the parts where the heresy was report- 
ed to exist, to inquire and report. The suspected Pres- 
byteries were not allowed to sit in Synod till the affb 
was settled. The Synod acted, cut off the unsound, and 
9* 



ro2- 

restored peace to the orthodox. Why may not the next 
General Assembly do the same thing?"' "If this course- 
be taken, you exclude from your judicatories those who 
are charged with unsoundness until the affair is issued ; 
and you gain two things — first, you put out those who 
trouble you ; and second", you will be prepared to admire 
ister wholesome admonition to the suspected. This 
course will show that you are cautious of the character of 
your brethren. You will not impeach them till inquiry is 
made in an orderly manner. But if something of this 
sort is not done, what will the world say? 5 * See Wes- 
tern Presbyterian Herald, June 1, 1837. 

Dr. Junkin offered a resolution: "That the orthodox 
would agree not to go into the Assembly, unless the Syn- 
od of the Western Reserve were excluded." "There is 
common fame enough to cut off the Synod at the outset." 
Merald, June 1,- 1837, 

Mr. E. J. Breckinridge said: "All that is proposed, re- 
fers to what the Assembly ought to do. W 7 e must go to 
ihe .Assembly. W 7 e can do nothing here, lam just 
where 1 used to be. I am opposed to violent action. Let 
us do nothing which cannot be fully justified. It is vain- 
to hope that you can exclude the persons against whom: 
these speeches and memorials are aimed. There is no 
power any where that can do it." Herald, June 1, 
1837. 

Dr. Baxter said : "In our general views we are unani- 
mous, that the purity of the church is endangered, and 
that something must be done. But we differ as to the 
mode of relief." "As to some suggestions of Dr. Junkin, 
I cannot support them. We have no constitutional au- 
thority here. We meet merely to consult, in the exercise 
of a proper right, and to present our views to the General 
Assembly. But if we take the ground that we are a part 
©f I he judicatories of the church, and proceed to excom- 
municate our brethren, we assume high judicial powers 
-mkI a nay public opinion against, us." "If high handed 
and apparently unconstitutional measures are taken, it 
will greatly injure us. There is great distrust as to the 
designs of the orthodox: it is supposed that the friends of 
:hc constitution propose to alter the constitution. And i£ 



103' 

the Convention resolved to set aside Synods, and excom- 
municate them, it will injure us by confirming these fears. 5 r 
Herald, June 1, 1837. 

Mr. Breckinridge said : "The decision on the Foreign 
Missionary question of the last Assembly was- an outrage ; 
but preceding Assemblies had already implied the same 
decision to refuse a Presbyterian organization. All the 
great principles that are developed in our system were 
intrenched on years ago as fully as now. 5 ' "Let it be 
recollected too, that to get apart from the unsound, is not 
the only thing to be done. It must not be done on the 
principles which may destroy ourselves.' 7 "I have asked 
a hundred brethren, 'what is your view of getting apart ']-' 
Yet not one has given me a clear, distinct, detailed 
statement which he was willing to adopt," Herald, June 
1, 1837. 

Mr.- Musgrave said i "I wonder that there is any call 
fer facts, ff any man is in darkness, let him read 
Barnes' Notes and the Christian Spectator, and read the 
doctrines which are recorded there. Let him also turn to : 
the Voluntary Associations ;. I call them not benevolent,, 
but party engines." "BuTwe forget the machinery that 
is at work against us, manufacturing and sending out 
ministers so rapidly, that if we simply wait, discuss and 
do not act, in twelve months our case will be entirely hope- 
less. Some of our brethren are already clear that the 
present state of things is no longer tolerable. They will 
have a reform or separation." •' What then is to be done 
with such men, who are false and deceivers? We can- 
not live with them— we can have no peace with them— 
they are in opposition to our principles and policy and to 
moral honesty. That we must get apart is clear. Mr. Breck- 
inridge says we must not take a step in the dark. But 
can we not legislate conditionally, and take the first step- 
that is clear] is not the course plain? If we have the 
power, as 1 hope we shall have — although^ I am not very 
sanguine — =:s it not clear that men who teach doctrines 
confessedly at variance with our standards must be cut off, 
and the institutions which divide and ruin us must be de- 
stroyed ? This is clear. Let us then determine that 
those bodies, which are corrupt shall be arraigned and; 



104 

fried. My plan would be to cite them,- bring' them to you? 
bar, get a Committee to present the facts to the next As- 
sembly, and you exclude them from all power till the issue 
h settled." "Bui suppose we have not a majority in the 
next General Assembly. There are two propositions 
which may be made. 1. We may propose an amicable 
division. Let us try our brethren who say they love peace 
and are tired of war, and that it is destructive of re- 
vivals — except about two months before the meeting of 
the General Assembly. Well, we say so too. We are 
sick and weary of their falseness and their assaults, we 
want rest. 2. But suppose we cannot divide amicably. 
Although we cannot see at first what to do, we must look 
about for light. I come to ask you, and God the Father 
of lights: let us look to Him in prayer. Let us settle this, 
that if the New School have the majority in the next As- 
sembly, we are a dead minority — not an accidental minori- 
ty, but we never shall be a majority. If the last Assem- 
bly and other Assemblies have not brought up the church 
to secure a majority, all hope is gone. Your opponents- 
multiply like frogs. They educate, license, and settle 
men faster than you can do. But if the next Assembly 
be Old School, what shall we do? If reform be impossi- 
ble, the imperative alternative is separation." "Let us 
cling together and strive for victory, or fall in the effort." 
Herald, June 1, 1837. 

It wiM be seen fro-m the debates in the Convention, that 
the members aimed at one of two things : reform or 
separation. And from the debates it will be seen what 
was meant by reform. It was to secure to the Old School 
a majority, and effectually to put the New School in the 
minority. Mr. Musgrave says : "If the last Assembly 
and other Assemblies have not brought up the church to 
secure a majority, all hope is gone." The reader of this 
portion of the history of the church cannot fail to see that 
a permanent majority for the Old School was, with one 
portion of the Convention, the leading object in this busi- 
ness of "reform" "Let us settle this point, that if the 
New School have the majority in the next Assembly, we 
are a dead minority — not an accidental minority, but we 
never shall be a majority." Whether such measures, an 



105 

the part of a minority, to gain- the ascendency, is no: a 
reform that needs to be reformed, is a question to be de- 
cided by the impartial reader. 

Whilst some would have been satisfied with a perma- 
nent majority, others would not have been content wi:h 
any thing short of a division of the church. Mr. Breck- 
inridge was clear that the church ought "to get apart." 
Dr. Junkin urged that : "That Convention never would 
have been called, but for the purpose of separating the 
Pelagians (the Dr's name for New School) from the sound 
part of the church." 

But this policy was not urged by all. "Dr. BIythe 
spoke at some length in opposition to* measures of separa- 
tion. He wanted to contend — was opposed to cutting off 
any Synod^till tried." Herald, June 1, 1837. 

Dr. Junkin said : "We ought to have some plan. We 
must not count on a majority ; let us have some settled 
principles. Do not trust a New School majority to arraign 
and cut off New School men, and New School Presby- 
teries. If we have a majority we can do what we please ;. 
and we know what we shall do." "We must be prepared 
for amputation, difficult and painful as it is." 

The Convention found it difficult to agree upon a plan 
for action, provided they should be a minority in the As* 
sembly. Dr. Junkin urged the Convention in such a case,, 
"at once to bring in its ultimatum and say — we are deter- 
mined as one man, that unless this reform is immediately 
effected, we will cut you off. \\ 7 e are the Presbyterian 
church; you are not, but are undermining its founda- 
tions." 

Dr. Blythe's plan savored a little more of modesty. He 
hoped, "that if the orthodox were in a minority in the 
Assembly, they would rise in a body, leave the house and 
go on with the business of the church." 

Mr. Breckinridge seemed not to-be pleased with any one's 
plan but his own, if plan he had. He said : "We need not 
detail plans for the General Assembly ; I will not agree 
to make the Moderator the Dictator of the General As- 
sembly. I will go as far as any one for sound Presbyte- 
rian doctrine and order. But not for. measures unconsti- 



106 

tutional, such as the exclusion of any body regularly com- 
missioned to the General Assembly." 

After five or six days had been spent by the Conven- 
tion in a wide range of discussion, Dr. Wilson from the 
business committee* "presented a resolution, declaring 
that in case the Assembly shall not take measures for re- 
form, this Convention will proceed to ulterior and decisive 
measures." 

Dr. Junkin suggested "that the resolution was too un- 
defined. It does not state what measures we shall take, 
nor when." 

Mr. Musgrave said : "We are not yet prepared to say 
what measures we will adopt. We must wait till we 
see the action of the General Assembly. If we proceed 
now to say what that action ought to be, we shall be great- 
ly divided in opinion, and cannot agree in any thing to be 
determined upon. It will moreover be very injudicious in 
us to present a request to the Assembly for important re- 
forms, and dictate to them, by threats, what they shall 
do." 

Dr. Junkin thought that "definite, decided action was 
the thing now to be resolved on. He moved to amend, by 
appending to the resolution the words, "for separating the 
Pelagians and anti-Presbyterian party from the Pres- 
byterian church." 

"Dr. Wilson objected to the word "Pelagian" in the 
amendment. In all the charges for false doctrine which 
he had framed, he had never accused any man of Pela- 
gianism. There is a great deal of Semi-Pelagianism and 
Armenianism in the church; but if there be Pelogianism 
I do not know it. If the amendment be adopted, J shall 
insist on determining the modus operandi of the separa- 
tion. This is the last Convention 1 shall ever attend if I 
live to fourscore. But I mean to know before I leave this 
Convention what the Old School are to do." 

Mr. Brown said : "1 will not consent to menace the 
General Assembly. It is utterly out of place for us to de- 
cide for the Assembly and dictate to them." 

Dr. Baxter said : "I am not prepared for revolutionary 
measures. To attempt such would be usurpation in us. 
Even if we proclaim division, and the church sustains us, 



107 

and a new General Assembly is formed out of the ortho* 
dox portion of the church, still the whole affair has a most 
irregular origin," 

la the discussions of the general questions of Reform 
or Separation, a multiplicity of subjects was introduced — - 
the heresies and disorders of certain bodies, plans of union,, 
Congregationalism, Hopkinsianism, New Havenism, Abo? 
lition, Slavery, Voluntary Societies, &c. 
- The debate on a resolution to discountenance the Home 
Missionary and Education Societies showed the feeling of 
the Convention in reference toother voluntary societies. 

Mr. Breckinridge moved to amend by adding "that oth- 
er voluntary societies, and especially the American 
Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions be request- 
ed to use greater caution in respect to the interference., by 
their agents, in the controversies of the Presbyterian 
church. " "I mean this," said Mr. Breckinridge, "as an 
indictment of the Am. B. C. F. Missions." 

Mr. Piumer said : "There has been no evidence fur- 
nished to my mind that the bodies here aimed at have done 
wrong. The improprieties are the improprieties of the 
agents." 

Mr. Smith of Charleston, said: "If the language of the 
amendment be right, as respects the Am. B. C. F. Mis- 
sions, it is equally applicable to the agents of the Wes- 
tern Foreign Missionary Society, (Oki School,) for the 
agents of that Board have interfered with us." 

Mr. Engles said : "In the station which 1 occupy, I have 
had access to a number of facts illustrating the influence 
of Voluntary Associations on the controversies of the 
Presbyterian church. Ail of them, in a greater or less 
degree, have meddled. Yet I think the introduction of this 
amendment unhappy ; it has consumed time, and excited 
unpleasant feeling. Notwithstanding the explanations 
that have been given of this amendment, it implies strong 
censure. Of ail the societies meant to be reached by it, 
the Am. Board, I believe to be the least obnoxious to such 
a charge. I could state facts which would show the Sun- 
day School Union and the Tract Society are much more 
so, if they are to be held responsible for the doings of their 
ngeats a " 



103 

The Convention at last agreed upon a Memorial to the 
General Assembly. It was presented to the Convention 
by Mr. Breckinridge, the author of the Act and Testimo- 
ny, and is much in character with that document, though 
prepared with more camion. It treats, 1. "In relation to 
doctrine,"' 2. "In relation to church order. ,? 3. "In re- 
lation to discipline." 4. "Method or Reform." 



( m ) 



CHAPTER XTL 



GENERAL ASSEMBLY. OF 1537 



The Assembly met after the Convention had been in ses- 
sion about a week, and before its final adjournment. The 
election of Moderator showed a majority for the Old School 
party. 

The Memorial of the Convention was presented to the 
Assembly the next day after it met. After some opposi- 
tion it was received, read, and acted upon, and was made 
***the foundation of the famous Reform Acts of 1837, which 
resulted in the schism of the church. 

The first measure proposed, was the abrogation of the 
Plan of Union of 1801. The following is tnere solution : 

i4 As the Plan of Union* adopted for the new settle- 
ments m 1801, was originally an unconstitutional act on 
the part of that Assembly — these important standing rules 
having never been submitted to the Presbyteries — and as 
they were totally destitute of authority as proceeding from 
the General Association of Connecticut, which is invested 
with no power to legislate in such cases, and especially to 
enact laws ;to regulate churches not within her limits ; and 
as much confusion and irregularity have arisen from this 
.unnatural and unconstitutional system of union, therefore, 
it is resolved, that the Act of the Assembly of 1801 , en- 
titled a "Plan of Union," be, and the same is hereby ab- 
rogated. " 

This was carried by a vote of 143 to 110, some New 
School men, as Dr. Cleland, voting for it for the sake of 
peace. 

Against this resolution of the Assembly the minority 
protested. They urged, that the plan was n-ot umconsti* 
10 



110 

tutional — that the plan was never submitted to the Pres- 
byteries, because it was not regarded as possessing the na- 
ture of "Constitutional rules, to be obligatory on all the 
churches, " but merely an agreement with another body 
about churches in the flew -settlements — that the Assem- 
bly of 1801 had only exercised the power granted it by the 
Form of Government [Chap. J. Sec. 2.] in declaring "the 
terms of admission into the communion" of the Presby- 
terian church — that the Plan o-f Union, now declared to 
be unconstitutional, was formed twenty years before the 
adoption of the present constitution of the church — that 
this Plan, at the time of the adoption of the present con* 
stitution, was in full operation, and of acknowledged au- 
thority as common law in the church — that it had been 
recognised as constitutional, by the General Assembly, 
from year to year, for more than one third of a century — 
and that the Plan was not "unnatural ," but a most natural, 
wise and benevolent plan for promoting the unity, increase, 
and purity of the church in the new settlements. 

The minority also objected to the mode in which the re- 
solution was brought before the Assembly, urging that a 
majority of the' Committee, to whom the Memorial was re- 
ferred, were members of the Convention that present? d the 
Memorial, a: 4 that more than eighty, who voted for the 
resolution in the Assembly, were members of the Conven- 
tion in whose name the Memorial was presented. 

The next measure was to cite'certain judicatories to ap- 
pear before the Assembly. This was considered a test 
question, and showed that in an Assembly of two hundred 
and fifty members, the Old School or Reform party had % 
lean majority of only six. The following resolution pass- 
ed by a vote of 128 to 122, viz. : 

"Resolved, That the proper steps be now taken to cite 
to the bar of the next Assembly, such inferior judicato- 
ries as are charged by common fame with irregularities." 

Against this resolution and two others on the same sub- 
ject, there wa3, as above stated, a strong vote. The plan 
of citation would have been constitutional, yet it was op- 
posed by the minority on the ground that they did not be- 
lieve that the accused judicatories were guilty. This plan 
>. however, soon abandoned by the majority, as too 



Ill 

"tedious and troublesome" And, at once, their entire 1 
policy was changed. 

After this a committee of ten was appointed to effect am 
amicable division of the church. But this measure fait- 
ed. The reason will fas stated hereafter. 

The next measure was to cut off the Synod of the Wes- 
tern Reserve. The resolution was as follows: 

"Resolved, That by the operation of the abrogation of 
the Plan of Union of 1801, the Synod of the Western 
Reserve is-, and is hereby declared to be no longer a part, 
of the Presbyterian church in the United States of Amer- 
ica," 

Against this resolution the commissioners from that 
Synod protested. They considered this act, by which they 
were excluded, "unconstitutional and unjust" They as- 
serted that they were regularly commissioned, had been 
admitted and had exercised the rights of members for two- 
weeks — that their Presbyteries had a regular existence f 
according to the constitution — that some of them existed 
prior to the adoption of the constitution in 1§21, and par- 
ticipated in that act. They say : "If there was any thing 
wrong in the original organization of our Presbyteries — 
which we do not admit or believe — this wrong was charge- 
able, not upon us, but upon the Synod of Pittsburgh, from? 
whose act our original Presbyteries received their exis- 
tence, which act has been sanctioned by twenty-two Gen- 
eral ''Assemblies, up to the present time." They com- 
plained that this new discovery of unconstitutional li -y \ 
which could relate to "accommodation churches" only, 
should drive Presbyteries, ministers, elders and people, re- 
gularly introduced according to the most orthodox form, 
from their rights and privileges without a trial. They 
urged the disastrous and suicidal bearing of such a policy 
upon the churches — that under its operation any member, 
or number of members, who may happen to be obnoxious 
to the majority, may, under some pretext or other, be 
driven from the church without citation or Uial. 

This very policy was indeed carried out in the next 
great reform measure — the excision of three Synods in 
the State of New York. The following resolutions wgx& 
adopted : viz* 



m 

"Be it resolved i>y the General Assembly of the Pres- 
byterian Church in the United States of America, 

"1. That in consequence of the abrogation, by this 
Assembly, of the Plan of Union of 1801, between it and 
the General Association of Connecticut, as utterly uncon- 
stitutional, and therefore null and void from the begin- 
ning, the Synods of Utica, Geneva and Genesee, which 
were formed and attached to this bixly, under and in ex- 
ecution of said Plan of Union, be, and are hereby declar- 
ed to be out of the ecclesiastical connexion of the Presby- 
terian church of the United States of America, and that 
they are not in form or in fact an integral portion of said 
church. 

2- That the solicitude of the Assembly on the whole 
subject, and its urgency for the immediate decision of it, 
are greatly increased by reason of the gross disorders 
which are ascertained to have prevailed in those Synods, 
(as well as that of the Western Reserve, against which a 
declarative resolution, similar to the first of these, has 
been passed during our present session,) it being made 
?!ear to us, that even the Plan of Union itself was never 
consistently carried into, effect by those professing to act 
under it*, 

3. That the General Assembly has no- 1 intention, by 
these resolutions, or by that passed in the case of the Synod 
of the Western Reserve, to effect in any way the ministerial 
standing of any members of either of said Synods, nor to 
disturb the pastoral relation in any church; nor to inter- 
fere with the duties or relation of private christians in their 
respective congregations ; but only to declare and deter- 
mine, according to the truth and necessity of the case, 
and by virtue of the foU authority existing in it for that 
purpose, the relation of all said Synods, and all their con- 
stituent parts to this body, and to the Presbyterian church 
in the United States. 

4. That inasmuch as there are reported to be several 
churches and ministers, if not one or two Presbyteries, 
now in connexion with one or more of said Synods, which 
-! re strictly Presbyterian in doctrine and order, be it, there- 
fore, further resolved, that all such churches and ministers 

■as wish to unite with us,. are hereby directed, to apply for 



113 

admission into those Presbyteries belonging to our con- 
nexion which are most convenient to their respective lo- 
cations ; and that any such Presbytery as aforesaid, being 
strictly Presbyterian in doctrine- and order, and now in 
connexion with either of said Synods, as may desire to 
unite with us, are hereby directed to make application, 
with a full statement of their cases, to the next General 
Assembly, which will take proper order thereon." 

The vote on the first resolution was. Yeas 115 — Nays 
88. The minority had been made less by the exclusion of 
the members of the Synod of the Western Reserve. The 
vote, however, shows that the Synods were excluded by a 
minority of the Assembly as constituted. Out of two 
hundred and fifty who had voted on the citation question, 
only 115 voted to cut off the three Synods in New York. 

After the above resolution had been offered, Mr. Jessup. 
one of the minority, moved their postponement with a 
view of introducing the following substitute, viz. : 

"Whereas, it has been alleged, that the Synods of Ge- 
neva, Genesee and Utica, of the Presbyterian church in 
the United States of America, have been guilty of impor- 
tant delinquency and grossly unconstitutional proceedings, 
and a resolution predicated on this allegation to exclude 
the said Synods from the said Presbyterian church, has 
been offered in this Assembly; and, whereas, no specified 
act of said Synods has been made the ground of proceed - 
ing against those bodies, nor any specific members of those 
bodies have been designated as the delinquents ; and, 
whereas, these charges are denied by the commissioners 
representing those bodies on this floor, and an inquiry into 
the whole" matter is demanded ; and, whereas, a majority 
of the members of the Synods have had no previous notice 
of these proceedings, nor of the existence of any charge 
against them, individually and collectively, nor any oppor- 
tunity of defending themselves against the charges so 
brought against them. 

Therefore, Resolved, That the Synods of Utica, Ge- 
neva and Genesee, be, and hereby are cited to appear on 
the third Thursday of May next, at Philadelphia, before 
the next General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church 
in the United States of America, to show what they have 
done or failed to do, in the case in question, and, if neces- 
10* 



114 

mvy, generally to answer any charges that may or can be 
alleged against them, to the end that the whole matter 
may be examined into, deliberated upon* and judged of, ac- 
cording to the Constitution and Discipline of the Presby- 
terian church in the United States of America." 

This course, which would have been constitutional, was 
rejected by the majority, and the motion to postpone was 
cut off by the previous question. 

Against this excinding act, the Commissioners from the 
excinded Synods, protested. They deemed the act utter- 
ly unconstitutional and unprecedented. They contended 
that the Book of Discipline gave to* the Assembly no- 
power to adopt such a mode of procedure, in the trial and 
punishment of ministers and members. They complain- 
ed, that, when the regular and constitutional method of 
trial was proposed, the majority rejected it, and proceed- 
ed, in the face of all constitutional regulations, to cut off 
four or five hundred ministers in good and regular stand- 
ing. They asserted that "the majority of the churches 
within the bounds of said Synods were strictly. Prcsby4'> 
rian m their structure, and with few exceptions, even the 
soiall nuroher of churches originally Congregational, were 
not organized under the stipulations of the said Plan of 
Union, but came in under a different arrangement, and 
possessed rights on this subject, separate from, and inde- 
pendent of, the Plan of Union of. 1801*, secured to them 
by the Assembly of 1808, by which the Synod of Albany 
was authorized to take the "Middle Association" under its 
care. They urged, that their Presbyteries and Synods 
had been constitutionally formed, and, as such, had no de- 
pendence upon the Plan of Union, or any other plan, and. 
that their ministers had been regularly inducted into the 
office of the ministry. They complained that the Con- 
vention party were permitted to utter vague and injurious 
reports, and when requested, refused to give names, pla- 
ces or dates — ; 1 1 a t "although the right was insisted upon, 
not a single commiss : oi)er from any one of the three Syn- 
ods could obtain the floor to address the Assembly on the 
resolution, being put down by the motion for the previous 
question." 

The impartial reader of this portion of the history of 

; 'j'jutrovcrsy will be surprised at. the contradictory go* 



115 

sitions often assumed by the Reformers — such as He will 
find in the short compass of the excinding resolutions a- 
bove. In the third resolution the Assembly had "no inten- 
tion, by these resolutions to effect in any way the minis- 
terial standing of any members of either of said Synods." 
Yet in the second resolution, they had said, that the As^ 
sembly's "urgency" on this subject was "greatly increas- 
ed by reason of the gross disorders which are ascertain- 
ed to have prevailed in those Synods." 

The Assembly declared that their acts were not intend- 
ed to interfere with the organization and peace of the Syn- 
ods, but to show the true condition of those Synods, "to- 
be out of the ecclesiastical connexion of the Presbyterian 
Church." And yet the last resolution directs Presbyte* 
ries, ministers and churches to detach themselves from-- 
their Synods, and seek a new connexion with the Reform- 
ers, thus attempting to exercise authority over bodies de- 
clared to be "out of" their connexion — and thus attempt- 
ing to disturb their order and peace ! 

The Editor of the "Protestant and Herald, March 7, 
1839, speaking of the excision, says : "No censure was 
passed either upon the churches of ministers." But 
soon he says: "We now leave the candid- reader to de- 
cide whether the Old School, as watchmen on the walls of 
Zion, were not bound to take decisive steps to arrest the 
progress of dangerous error in our beloved church." 
Here it is stated that the Synods were severed, because 
the Old School "were bound to take decisive steps to ar- 
rest the progress- of dangerous error " or in the language 
of the excinding resolution, because of "gross disorders."* 
And yet we are told, "no censure was passed either upon 
the churches or their members." 

In 1837", after the excision,- Dr. Miller, in writing to Mr, 
Plumer, and in speaking of the excinded ministers, says : 
"Their ministerial character is left untouched." Herald, 
Sept. 21, 1837.. 

Mr. Plumer must have smiled at this declaration, when 
he contrasted it with his own famous speech in the Assem- 
bly,, when these excinding resolutions were discussed. An* 
extract will be given to shew how "their ministerial char- 
acter was left untouched," He said : "We have been told 
that there, have been extensive revivals of religion in the 



116 

regions of the church of which we speak/' "It was re- 
ported that a great revival was going on in a certain place, 
and some of these brethren must needs go up and see the 
great work. It turned out to be a noisy fanatical mob of 
christians and perfectionists : about 40 professed conver- 
sion." Speaking of one of their ministers, he says : 
•'Rave you not heard of his indecencies, and his outrages 
upon all the proprieties of social life?" " What are we 
to think of a Presbytery that will permit, without cen- 
sure or restraint, such a man to roam among the churches 
with clean papers, scattering errors, fire-brands and death 
wherever he goes? And what are we to think of a Syn- 
od that will nourish in its bosom a Presbytery so grossly 
remiss in duty, and so criminally negligcnt'in discipline?" 
"A gentleman from that region told me he had seen young 
men and girls walk the streets in broad day, hugging each 
other and shouting hallelujah ! This, Sir, is the natural 
working of the system. It is unrestrained fanaticism." 
Herald, Aug. 3, 1837. 

The scoffs of infidels against revivals of religion are 
rarely so coarse. And yet this rudeness of Mr. Plumer 
met the approbation of the majority. In making this 
speech he was called to order by the minority. The mod- 
erator said he was in order. "An appeal was taken from 
the chair, but the house sustained the moderator." Her- 
ald, Aug. 3, 1837. 

Yet, after this speech, and this action of the Assembly, 
and the excinding resolution, charging the Synods with 
''gross disorders," Dr. Miller writes to Mr. Plumer ; 
"Their ministerial character is left untouched ! !" - 

The next measure of reform was the imperative act : 
viz. : 

"This Assembly now render it imperative on Presby- 
teries to examine all who make application for admission 
into their bodies, on experimental religion, didactic or po- 
lemic theology and church government." ^This was to 
operate on ministers passing from one Presbytery to an- 
other, and is clearly a violation of the constitution of the 
church. Chap. 1G, Art. 3. 

The next reform measure was a resolution in reference 
to new Presbyteries, which the minority urged. was directly 



m 

in the face of the constitution. Chap. 22, Art. 1 and 2°, 
and Chap. 12, Art. 2. It is as follows : 

"That no commissioner from a new formed Presbytery 
shall be permitted to take 'his* seat, nor shall such commis- 
sioner be reported by the Committee on Commissions, until 
the Presbytery shall have been dtsiy reported by the Syi> 
od, and recognised by the Assembly ; ; and that the same 
rule apply where the name of any Presbytery has been 
changed." 

The next measure of reform, was the dissolution of the 
Third* Presbytery of Philadelphia. The party in power 
ordered the territory, and not the ministers of this Pres- 
bytery to belong to the old Presbytery. The ministers 
and churches, now out of the chir«rch,= were directed to ap- 
ply for admission once more, as if t j hey never had been* 
in the church. This was protested against as an uncon- 
stitutional measure, designed to act as an excision without 
trial, or at least result in the exclusion of Mr. Barnes and^ 
other Constitutional ministers of good standing. 

And, lastly, as a measure to complete the reform, the 
Assembly of 1837, in order to direct and control the or- 
ganization of the next Assembly, required and received s ?r 
pledge from the clerks, that they would, in making out a 
roll for the Assembly of 1838, omit the names of any 
Commissioners from any of the excinded bodies. 

These reform measures were viewed with astonishment 
by the religious community generally. The Elditor of 
the Cincinnati Journal^ said : "It" will be seen by our col- 
umns, that the effective party discipline kept up by the 
convention or caucus at Philadelphia, were producing by 
our last accounts, their appropriate results." "All the 
forms of law, civil and ecclesiastical— all the principles of 
natural justice have been set at nought." "We speak 
not rashly, nor under the influence of party feeling, 
wrought up to passion. The greatness of the enormity 
would render idle all expressions of reproach." 

The Editor of the New York Observer very modestly 
charges extravagance upon the Convention and the major- 
ity of the. Assembly. He says: "Without intending any 
imputation against the honesty of the speakers, we must 
caution our. readers against believing every thing that is>» 



118 

said in the speeches delivered at Philadelphia, either in the 
Assembly or Convention." 

The Editor of the Boston Recorder deemed the pro- 
ceedings of the Assembly so extraordinary? that he could 
not find a place for them in his paper. His remarks are 
these : "We mentioned last week, in an extract from the 
Presbyterian, the opening of the sessions of that body at 
Philadelphia, on the 18th ult. We could not in good con* 
science toward God, nor in loving kindness to our readers, 
nor in justice to ourselves, give even an abstract of all the 
proceedings of the body. We shall not attempt it." 



(119) 



CHAPTER XVII. 



OPERATON OF THE EXCINDING ACTS- ARGUMENTS OF 
THE PARTIES, FOR AND AGAINST THE EXCISION— THE 
TRUE CHARACTER OF THE EXCINDING SYNODS— THE 
POUCy OF THE REFORMERS. 



The acts of the Assembly of 1837, which were pecu- 
liarly odious to the minority, were the excinding opera- 
tions, by which five hundred and nine ministers, five hun- 
dred and ninety-nine churches and about sixty thou- 
sand members were severed from the church, and at once 
disfranchised without notice or trial. 

The advocates of reform justify their course by say- 
ing, that the Plan of Union of 1801 was unconstitutional, 
because it allowed committee-men to act as elders, &c* 
To this it was replied, that committee-men have not been 
allowed to sit in the Assembly since 1831 — that the Plan 
of Union had not the nature of constitutional rules — only 
a contract between two denominations about frontier 
•churches, and, therefore, not unconstitutional ; and that 
thirty-six Assemblies had regarded it as constitutional. 

But say the friends of the constitution, admit that the 
Plan was, after thirty-six years, found to be unconstitu- 
tional. Let the Legislature repeal the law. Indeed, 
when the abrogation of the Plan was voted for, the Re- 
formers intended nothing more than a repeal. A retro- 
spective operation was altog tlier an afterthought. Dr. 
Cleland and others voted for the abrogation or repeal, who 
have steadily opposed the excision, and the retrospective 
bearing of the repeal. 



BO 

Under this Plan of Union contracts were made, and 
monies were given, and rights vested, and without o ; ppa° 
silion for one third of a century. 

In the law suit, it was proved, at length, and from the 
Minutes of the Assembly, that from 1801 to 1837, the 
Assembly had extended its jurisdic4ion over the territory 
of the excinded Synods. 

it was also proved from the Minutes of the Assembly, 
.thai year after year, the Assembly acknowledged the re- 
ceipt of funds for education, missions, theological semina- 
ries, &c, from those Synods. For six years in succes- • 
sion from 1813 to 1818, it was proved, that the Assembly 
acknowledged the receipt of funds from the excinded re- 
gion for the Seminary at Princeton. In 1815, one thou- 
sand six hundred and sixty-six dollars were received for 
this purpose. See McEl ray's Report, pp. 31 to 36. 

Could all the funds collected in that region for educa- 
tion, missions, theological seminaries, &c, be accurately 
summed up, they would show, that no portion of the whole 
body have done more for the Presbyterian Church than 
the excinded region. 

The Constitutional party regarded this as a case almost 
without parallel in civil or ecclesiastical jurisprudence — 
that the General Assembly should pass an act in 1801, 
under which, for thirty six years, contracts wer^e made, 
rights vested and protection expected, and then the same 
legislature, after so long a time, declare her own act, not 
only unconstitutional, but the whole superstructure null 
and void ! 

Common sense decides, that when a legislature passes 
an unconstitutional act, and that act is, at the time, op- 
posed, and the people refuse to acquiesce, as in the Old and 
New Court question in Kentucky, the whole system ought 
to fall with the repeal of the law- But where the legis- 
lature passes a law, believed at the time to be constitu- 
tional, to which there is no opposition, and in which the 
people acquiesced for a third of a century, and then for 
the same legislature, by a small majority to decide that 
the old law is unconstitutional, and nullify every thing 
built upon it, is, to be sure, a novel procedure in civil ju- 
risprudence ! 

The case of Georgia and the Yazoo purchase has been 






ni 

quoted as a ease in point. The Legislature of Georgia, 
at one time, sold to certain individuals a large tract of land 
in the Yazoo country. Under this law, the purchasers 
tna.de grants to other individuals. But a subsequent le- 
gislature abrogated the law, declaring it to be null and 
void in all its provisions, thus endeavoring to cut off inno- 
cent purchasers from their homes and rights, which had 
been secured to them by the same legislature. Chief Jus- 
tice Marshall decided in this case against Georgia, and 
upon this principle^-that her legislature could not make a 
law, under which rights -were vested, and then again re- 
peal her law, and nullify the whole superstructure ; in 
other words, that a party concerned could not invalidate 
its own contracts ; and that what was done by one legisla- 
ture in this way, a succeeding one could not undo ; that if 
any rights were thus vested, they could not be recalled by 
absolute power. 

In this case, there fore, Judge Marshall decided according 
to common sense, that an act, though an unconstitutional 
law, is valid if rights have been invested under it. Ana 
in reference to this case, he said : "The legislature of 
^Georgia was a party to this transaction ; and for a party 
to pronounce its own deed invalid, whatever reason may be 
•-assigned for the invalidity, must be considered a mere act 
of power. " 

Bringing the same principles to bear in- the case of the 
Assembly of 1837, we see what would be the decision of 
the Supreme Court of the United States. It would be 
this: "The Assembly, 'the Supreme Legislature- ofthe 
church, was a party to this transaction; and for a party 
to pronounce its own deed invalid, whatever reason may be 
assigned for the invalidity, must be considered a mere act 
of power. " 

These views also are sanctioned by statute law, and ac- 
cord with the usages of all business men. If one man en- 
ters into a contract with another, the law will not allow 
him to nullify his own contract. 

But admit the Old School exposition of the constitutional 
law to be correct, and what would be the result? It would 
sweep away ail security based upon legislative enactment, 
One legislature may pass a law under which rights and 



m 

f*mds may be vested. Eat the next legislature may not 
only repeal the law, but nullify the whole superstructure, 
.declaring it "null and voil from the beginning." 

About the time 'the Supreme Legislature' of the Presby- 
terian Church formed the Plan of Union, the Supreme Le- 
gislature of the United States purchased from a foreign 
power that large tract of country called Louisiana, which 
:was added to X he territory -of the United States, «,nd out of 
which were made the States of Louisiana, Mississippi and 
Arkansas. It was said at the time that the purchase was 
unconstitutional. But it was regarded as advantageous 
and ratified by Congress. But suppose that in 1839, or 
thirty-six years after the purchase, the arrangement all 
the while being acquiesced ia, the question had been 
brought up again. Suppose that in Congress, party ex.- 
citement ran high, and that there was a struggle for pow- 
er. Suppose that the administration party were stronger 
than the Whigs, but feared that the other party would 
gain the ascendency, and to prevent it, some Northern 
Democrat had got up in Congress and said : "The Louis- 
iana country ought never to have been added to the Ua° 
ion. Half the population were Spaniard^ a$d jFrench. 
They had no love for our Republican institutions. Thai 
country has been the hot-bed of whigism. They have. op- 
posed the administration of the government. And be- 
side ail, they came into the |Jnipn in an unconstitutional 
manner. The two parties cannot act together. There 
must be a separation. We ought to sever from the Union 
.these foreigners. We now have the power — we may nev- 
er have again. I now propose that we cut orTStates enough 
to secure forever hereafter a preponderance to our party. ?; 
Suppose the resolution bad been offered, and by the vote 
of a small majority, the States of Louisiana, Mississippi 
and Arkansas declared to be not of the Union — no longer 
an integral part of the United States •! What would the 
civilized world have said of such a manoeuvre of a par- 
ty in Congress to secure power? Whether such a case 
would have been analogous to the action of the Assembly 
.of 1837, the candid reader must decide. 

But admit the correctness of the principle contended for 
Jay the Old School, and see the result. Because the Plan 



123 

of Union was unconstitutional, the whole is nullified, li- 
the formation of the Synods was unconstitutional, null and 
void f so was the formation of the Presbyteries.- And if tho 
Presbyteries were a nullity, so were their acts — the licen* 
sure and ordination of ministers, &c. And thus it wilt- 
follow, as- a 1 result, that the marriage connexions in the re- 
gion of the Synods are null and void ; and the good people 
there,- for thirty-six years, have been living in adultery, 
and their' children illegitimate \- 

But the Constitutional party have never admitted the* 
unconstitutionality of the Plan of Union, except for sake 
of argument. Indeed, the Supreme Court of Pennsylva- 
nia, Judge Rogers presiding, regarded the Plan of Union 5 
as constitutional. So did the Court in Bank, Chief Justice 
Gibson presiding. 

But the advocates of reform have, at times-, endeavored: 
to smooth over the excision, by urging, that the Synods 
were not cut off — only disowned, because not members ot 
the Assembly. 

To this the other party replied, that they were members, 
as would appear from the minutes of the Assembly, ihe 
Assembly's Digest, the testimony of the whole church up 
to 1837, and of the entire Old School Convention of 1837 — 
the citalion resolutions and other reform acts for days af- 
ter the repeal of the Plan, and the testimony of such Old 
School men as Dr. Blythe r who still say the Synods were 
members of the Assembly. 

Again: the Reformers have urged, that the churches 
were not Presbyterian but Congregational churches. T.nis 
representation was, by them, intended to justify the ex- 
cision. The truth on this point is not generally known,. 
Admitting, however, that the churches were not strictly 
Presbyterian, ought they to be east out and disfranchised 
for acting upon the faith of a Plan proposed and re- 
commended and sanctioned by the Assembly itself, for 
more than one third of a century ? 

But the truth* in reference to these churches, will not 
warrant this admission. In 1837, Rev. James Wood pub- 
lished a pamphlet on this subject. As he was an Old 
School man^in the pay of the party ^he will not be charged 



1*4 



with favoring the excmded Synods, 
character of the Synods in 1837 : 



He says this was the 



Synods, Pre*. Churches. 


Con. Churches 


Utica, 43 


38 


Geneva, , 109 


42 


Genesse, 103 


53 


Western Reserve, 32 


113 


287 


246 


See Wood's Pamphlet, pp 


7. 18. 24. 31. 



From Mr. Wood's* statements, therefore, it appears that, 
there was a handsome majority of Presbyterian church- 
es — enough without the Congregational churches for four 
Synods upon the most rigid terms. This has been admit- 
ted by the Reformers in reference to all the Synods, ex- 
cept the Western Reserve. About it 'much-has- been said, 
as- though it lacked almost every constitutional element. 

According to Mr. Wood's pamphlet, page 31, the Synod 
cS Western Reserve had eight Presbyteries and thirty-two 
Presbyterian churches — an average of four churches to a 
Presbytery. But as Mr. Wood slates, on the authority 
of the Stated Clerk of Synod, that some of the Presby- 
teries had only two Presbyterian churches, it was urged 
that these Presbyteries could have no constitutional exist- 
ence. This ground was taken by those who urged that 
the constitution required three churches to constitute a 
Presbytery. But it makes no such requisition. Chapter 10, 
Sec. 2, says : " A Prebytery consists of all the ministers 
and one ruling elder from each congregation within a cer- 
tain district;" Sec. 7, of the same Chapter says : M Any 
three ministers, and as many elders as may be present, 
belonging to the Presbytery, being met at the time and 
place appointed, shall be a quorum to do business." So 
far as the constitution is concerned, there might be a Pres- 
bytery without any church. But if there are churches, 
their representation is provided for. 

It has also been stated, that the Synod of the Western 
Reserve sent twenty delegates to the General Assembly 
when she was " not entitled to more than four, or at most 
eight." [See Reply to Manifesto, p. 15.] So far as the 
constitution is concerned, this was also a groundless as- 



125 



serlion. The representation in the Assembly is not in the 
ratio of churches, but of ministers. And if, in this Sy- 
nod, there were, more ministers than Presbyterian church- 
es, or if some of the ministers were preaching to Congre- 
gational churches, the Plan of Union of their own Gen- 
eral Assembly was to blame, and not the ministers. But 
how it happened to be discovered in 1837, that it was worse 
for Presbyterian ministers to preach to Congregationalisis 
than to infidels or heathens must be left to the reader to 
conjecture. 

In reference, however, to the true character of the ex- 
cluded Synods, the Old School estimate was more fully 
made out by Mr. Hubbell, counsel for the Old School par- 
ty in the law suit. Speaking, in his opening speech, of 
the operations of the excision, he said r " The measure 
would result in the exclusion of but two hundred and six- 
ty -hi ne churches, or thereabouts, that being the estimated 
number of Congregational churches in the bounds of these 
Synods. The residue of the five hundred and ninety- 
nine churches being Presbyterian-.'* MeElroy's Report, -n, 
167. 

This estimate of Mr.- Hubbell gives three hundred an ! 
thirty truly Presbyterian churches, with thirty or forty 
thousand members, cut off from the church of their fath- 
ers, because of their connection with Congregational 
according to the plan and recommendation of their own 
General Assembly. 

But the statements of Mr, Wood and Mr. Hubbell are 
from party- men. They are given to make the case as 
strong for the Reformers as they can make it. The in- 
telligent reader,, however, knows that the statements of a 
party at law, or their council, are not to be fully relied on. 
So in this controversy. In the law suit, the Rev. Miles 
P. Squire was examined and cross-examined, upon oath, 
in reference to the character of the churches-. He stated,. 
that he had beer* an agent for the Home Missionary Soci- 
ety ; had travelled in seventeen counties in the excinded 
region ; and speaking of the Synod to which he belonged, 
(Geneva) he said, " I know of no- churches that are strict- 
ly Congregational." See McEIroy's Report, p, 105. 

In this Synod, however, Mr. Wood had forty-two Con- 
gregational churches. But Mr, Squire made oath that 
11* 



•126' 

('id not know on a ^strictly Congregational'' church. This 
testimony, upon oath, of one who lived upon the ground, 
belonged to the Synod, and had travelled extensively as an 
agent among the churches, will show with what caution 
the- assertions of common fame, or interested individu- 
als, should be received. 

But the injustice of the excision, it was urged, was still 
more glaring as regarded the ministers who were cut off. 
They were nearly one fourth of the whole number ia 
the Presbyterian Church. They were all Presbyterian 
ministers, reclidn ecclesia. This has never been denied. 
Mr. Hubbell, in the trial, admitted this. Speaking of the- 
rive hundred and nine ministers who were declared out of 
the church, he said : -''None of them were Congregational ; 
the clergy of this district having, almost without excep- 
tion, caused themselves to-be ordained as Presbyterians." 
McElroy, p. J 67. 

This excinding process of 1837 was the first thing 
that fully convinced the churches-that they would be forced 
to submit to a division. It was indeed regarded as divis- 
ion itself. Against these measures, the five hundred and 
nine excinded ministers, and their friends, in and out of 
the Assembly, planted themselves. And of these reform 
measures, the friends of the constitution have greatly com- 
plained, and very justly to be sure. 

The Reformers themselves seemed sensible of fhe enor- 
mity of their acts. Up to the excision of 1837 they had 
reproached the other party for crying ''neutrality" and' 
♦'no difference. " But now they believed they had done 
something that would arouse tha "-New School," and 
make them willing to strive. The Editor of the Western 
Presbyterian Herald, June 21, 1837, in informing his 
readers of the excinding acts, calls upon his brethren to 
"stand firm amid the storm the New School will try to 
raise." And in another editorial of the same date, he says : 
"The New School, as might have been expected, are great- 
ly excited." 

That the Reformers anticipated a "storm," and when 
it cajmc, acknowledged "it might have been expected," ' 
shows a consciousness of the enormity of: the wrong. 

The Assembly of 1837 felt that an apology was neces- 
sary, not, it would seem, for forcing separation, but for the 



127 

manner, apparently so unjust. Hence, in their Circular- 
Epistle, they- plead necessity and say : "To have attempted 
to separate from us the brethren with whom we could no 
longer walk in peace, by personal process in each case, 
would obviously have been impossible, and even if possi- 
ble, tedious, agitating and troublesome in the highest de- 
gree. And though the measures were extraordinary and 
alarming, yet they hope the churches will bear with them, 
inasmuch as good may come out of evil !" They say in 
the same Circular Epistle :. "It is our earnest hope, with 
respect, to the brethren thus severed, [cut off] from u§, that 
both parties will be essentially benefitted by the separation. 
We trust that both parties will, henceforth, proceed in the 
conscientious discharge of duty, without being crippkd or 
embarrassed by each other; and that hereafter there will 
be no strife between us, than who shall love the Redeemer 
most, and who shall serve hirn with the warmest zeal." 

There was to be sure a discrepancy between their anlu 
mpat ions and hopes. The New School had opposed strife 
and division, and tried to live in peace with their breth- 
ren. But in 1837, in an Assembly of two hundred and 
fifty members, the Old School, by ancident, had a lean ma- 
jority of only six. They cut of their brethren by a sum- 
mary process, deprived them of rights and privileges as 
Presbyterians, and. covered them with reproaches. Then, 
they anticipate a "storm " and that the New School would- 
be "greatly excited ," and at the same time hoped "that 
hereafter there will be no strife" between the parties ! 

This the New School called pacification aggressive. 

The excinding acts, however, accomplished what they- 
were designed to effect — the division of the church. That 
this was their primary design is evident from the speech- 
es and action of the party, notwithstanding much has been* 
said about crder> and the unconstitutionality of the Plan 
of Union, 

When the resolution for the excision of the Synod of 
the Western Reserve was offered, Dr. Baxter, in making. 
the opening speech in favor of it, said : "As the negocia- 
tions for a voluntary separation have failed, the action 
proposed by this resolution becomes indispensably neces- 
sary. It is not dictated by the spirit of unkindness,. -but i>5 



123 

adopted as the only course which is left to effect a separa- 
tion." W. P. Herald, 28th June, 1837. 

If any one in the Assembly knew what*was the design 
of the excinding acts, Dr. Baxter did ; for he was the 
Chairman of the Old School Convention — a Convention 
which arranged and carried through the Assembly every 
important measure. 

This corresponds with the declaration of the Assembly 
of 1837, in their Pastoral Letter, in which they speak of 
the division of the church being "the most desirable object." 
This i9 the language : "Discerning men have perceived, 
for a number of years, that the affairs of our beloved 
church were hastening to a crisis, and when the members 
of the Assembly came together, the state of the parties 
was such, as to< make it manifest, that a division of the 
church was the most desirable object that could be ef- 
fected." 

This is confirmed by the Reform Assembly of 1838. 
Speaking of the separation, they say: "The last General 
Assembly acted under the conviction, that the only possi- 
ble way to secure peace, was by the separation of the par- 
ties in our church." They expressly say, that their de- 
sign, in their first reform measures, was "to effect the sepa- 
ration." Again, in the same Letter, they say : "This pro- 
cedure was indeed novel; it had never been resorted to in 
our church before, and from its very novelty was calcu- 
lated to startle minds not accustomed to that mode of ac- 
tion ; it wa3, however, the only remedy for our case."" 
They felt, as one of their members expressed himself: 
"We now have the majority — we may never have again." 

The excinding process was indeed "novel" and "ivas 
calculated to startle." it was, however, they tell the world, 
"the only remedy to effect this separation." 

The minority also complained of the great destitution of 
impartiality in the Assembly of 1837 in their application 
of the principles of excision. If the existence of church- 
es, it was inquired, on the 'accommodation plan' destroys 
Synods and Presbyteries* which have such churches, why 
confine this, in its application, to the four Synods ? Why 
not declare null and void all plans of union with the As- 
sociate Reformed Church and the Congregational ists ? 
Why not declare the Synods of Philadelphia and Ne.w 






129 

York out of the church, because the plan of union of 1821 
with the Associate Reformed Church had operated there, 
allowing the existence of Presbyteries upon the plinciple 
of elective affinity, and allowing a Presbytery of two Se- 
ceders to have as much power in the General Assembly, 
as our Presbyteries of three members"? Why not anni- 
hilate also this 'accommodation plan V And why limit 
the excision in reference to the 'accommodation plan' with 
Congregationalists? If the Synod of the Western Re- 
serve ought to be cut off for this* reason, so ought the Syn- 
od of Western New York, and if these ought to be cut off 
for this reason, so ought the Synods of Albany, New Jer- 
sey f South Carolina and Georgia. 

This was explained by- the declarations and actions of 
the Reformers* The Seceders who came into the Presby- 
terian Church under the Plan of Union of 1821, uniformly- 
sided with the Old School. In reference to those who had 
come in under the Plan of 1801 it was not so. These facts 
caused the Old School to betray their partiality. A very 
zealous advocate of the reform has said : u Of the two 
parties in the churoh,4he Old School or Orthodox and the- 
New School or Latitudinarian, the Synods sided with the 
latter uniformly." See Reply to Manifesto, p. 16. 

In noticing such an objection to the Synods, the New 
School have been bold to assert, that the fact of the Synods 
siding with the New School was their offence! It was* 
asked : "Suppose the four Synods had sided with the Old 
School uniformly, had patronized the Philadelphia Pres- 
byterian, the Louisville Herald, and the Biblical Reper- 
tory, had sent their young men to Princeton, had given 
their money to the Assembly's Board, their Sunday -School 
and Tract Society, do you think they ever would have 
been severed or disowned]" See Answer to the Reply, 
p. 8. 

There is no impartial reader of tbe history of those 
events, who can decide, that the Synods would have been 
cut off, if they could have been brought up to this point of 
party discipline. 

But why cut off only four Synods? Wy not cut off all 
the Synods. Albany, New Jersey, &c, in which the accom- 
modation plan had operated? A careless reader of Old 
School statements might be led to suppose, that the consti*- 



130 

tution, and order of the church only demanded 1 the excis- 
ion of the four Synods. But some of the bolder men in 
the Assembly of 1837, by their honest avowals, let ih 
know what was the object. The first stroke at excision 
only cut ofFone Synod. Here some of the Reformers, as 
Dr. Blythe and others, wanted to stop. But it was fear- 
ed that would leave the New School too strong in the As- 
sembly. The most prominent man in the party declared 
he would not stop there in the work of reform, but boldly 
avowed : " We ivill cut off a sufficient number to give forever 
hereafter a majority, to one side of the house." 

By cutting off nearly one fourth of the ministers, they 
secured to themselves a handsome majority of those who 
were left. But it has been a matter of wonderment to- 
many, that men,, who clamored so loudly for honesty and' 
fair-dealing, did; not separate honorably from the New 
School party, if they were determined to separate. Why 
resort to such an expedient to make an impression that the 
Old School were a majority in the church ? This did not 
happen by chance — there was policy in itv The Editor of 
the Western Presbyterian Herald, July 21, 1836, says : 
u There are always some ready to join the strongest party, 
just because it is the strongest party." This- class- is gen 
erally pretty large — a sort of floating capital. And the 
Reformers knew, that if, by some stroke of policy, they 
could gain all that class, by making them think they were 
the stronger party, then they could out-number the friends 
of the constitution, and boldly set up a claim to the name,- 
rights and funds of the whole body. 

In this way, by the excision of 1837, the Reformers 
gained an advantage over their brethren. By this policy 
they had made themselves a majority in the Assembly. 
There was then presented, at once, to the mind of the man 
who had not been cut off a strong temptation to fall irt 
with the strongest party. In meeting the results of the* 
excision, the Old School ministers generally had nothing to 
lose,, but the New School, every thing. The Old School 
ministers hoped, by representing the excinded as no Pres- 
byterians, and those who stood by them, as Seceders, to> 
keep their own churches together, and to divide and con- 
quer the churches of New School ministers, unless they 
would come into measures.. 



- 



131 

In defence of the measures of the Assembly of 1837, 
the Reformers have been able to make no substantial plea, 
except necessity. They discovered that the division of the 
church was the most desirable object. They professed to 
believe that there was great heresy and disorder among the 
f^ew School, and to have attempted to discipline the dis- 
orderly, -according^ the ^constitution, ^would have been ^te- 
dious and troublesome.'' They urged, that unless some- 
thing was done then, it might never be done ; that they 
might never have a majority again; and they thus found 
it necessary to cut off enough of the New School "to give 
forever hereafter a majority to one side of the house," and 
inake it no longer "tedious and troublesome" to govern the 
; rest as they might choose. 

■Whate-ver the Reformers may say about their love of 
truth and order, and the necessity that was laid upon 
them, the conviction will fasten upon the public mind, 
and will go down to posterity, that they went into the As- 
sembly of 1837 with a fearful lust of domination, deter- 
mined to divide the church, or to adopt measures "to effect 
this separation." The reader must decide whether or not 
Dr. Cox expressed himself top strongly when he said : 

"They make the schism, and they feed the fire, 
Which distant ages scarce shall see expire. 
All to protect their party's godless sway, 
All to control the funds and have at last their mayS' 



(&S2) 



CHAPTER XVIIL 

THE CONTROVERSY ABOUT DOCTRINES. 



m Differences in doctrinal views have, at all times, 
been tolerated in -the Presbyterian church. This every 
Presbyterian knows. And even the best men among the 
Old School say it is allowable. Dr. Miller, in his Let- 
ters to Presbyterians, says : "Some differences of opinion 
among those in the same communion must necessarily he 
allowed" 

It has been shown, in a former chapter, that there was 
not perfect uniformity among those who constituted tho 
Westminister Assembly. Nor has it been attained at any 
one time, or even expected, except by a very small portion 
of the church. The differences were net, however, re- 
garded as fundamental ; yet since the Hopkinsian contro- 
versy especially, the points of difference have assumed 
importance, as auxiliary to the accomplishment of certain 
objects — the securement of a majority, the control. of the 
church, &c. 

The two parties in the church were mainly divided on 
these points, viz : The nature of imputation — The na- 
ture of man's inability — And the nature and extent of the 
atonement. The New School denied our personal indenti- 
ty with Adam.^-- that his sin is really and truly our sin, or 
that there is a literal transfer of moral character. They 
taught, that the sinner's inabiliiy to do what God requires, 
consists in his want of disposition, or an "inability of 
nvill." They taught, that Christ did not suffer as much as 
the whole human family would have suffered — not suffer- 
ing eternal punishment, which was the penalty of the 
h.w: and yet he tasted death for every man* 



183 

On these points, the New School said, that they con- 
curred with the Confession of Faith and the Bible. The 
• Old School said they did not. 

In 1831, Mr. Barnes was before the Assembly, charged 
with heresy. But he was honorably acquitted. 

In 1834, the Act and Testimony men raised the alarm 
about ki the alarming errors" which had been " counte- 
nanced and sustained by the acts of the supreme judicatories 
of our church." The signers of that document seemed 
■to feel, that they had entered into a solemn league, and In- 
deed they proved true to their vow. No matter what 
measure came up in Presbytery or Synod or General As- 
sembly, they seemed to be sworn men. This was clearly 
manifest in the Assembly of 1838, in the trial of Mr. Barnes. 
Sixty-seven members who had signed the Act and Tes- 
timony, voted for his condemnation-— not a man who had 
signed that document voted to sustain him. Every impar- 
tial mind will say, :thatrthese men had prejudged the case., 
and felt 4hat, by the Act and Testimony, they were pledg- 
ed not to sustain him. 

In 1835., the Old School had a majority. That Assem- 
bly passed sentence of condemnation on certain doc- 
trines which were never held in the Presbyterian church. 
It is true, they said the errors were prevalent among the 
New School. But such statements were made by Old 
^School men, who had their purposes to accomplish. In 
.the Act and Testimony, and similar productions, such 
sweeping, unguarded assertions were made, as were well 
calculated to destroy confidence, not only in the docu- 
ments, but in the veracity of the authors themselves. This 
-opinion was, entertained and politely expressed by the 
Princeton Professors, in reference to the writer of the Act 
and Testimony, the Rev. R. J. Breckinridge. They 
say : "In concluding our remarks on this defence of the 
Act and Testimony, there are a few supplementary re- 
marks which we deem it expedient to make. In the first 
place, there are many of the assertions of the writer 
which appear to us very inaccurate as to matters of fact; 
many of his assumptions altogether unauthorized." See 
Western Luminary, March 4, 1835. 

If therefore, the Princeton Fathers— decided Old School 
•men — could charge Mr. Breckinridge, the sreat leader o£ 
12 



the Reform party, with making "assertions'" which were 
"Very inaccurate as to matters of fact," well might the 
•public mind be slow in giving credence to all he has said 
in the Act and Testimony, Old School Conventions and 
elsewhere. 

About this time prosecutions were commenced against 
two prominent New School men-^-Dr. Beecher and Mr. 
Barnes. The avowed design was to bring out the decision 
of the General Assembly on the contested points. See Dr. 
J un kin's first letter to Mr;. Barnes.. Trial, Appendix, p. 4. 

The charges related substantially to the same views. 
The Old School expected a majority in 1836, and that both 
these men would be before that Assembly for trial. They 
calculated, that their sentiments would be condemned, 
;hk] these men, as the representatives of their party would 
be rejected ; and that thus they would drive out the New 
School , or force them into measures. These prosecutions 
were indeed regarded by the New School not only as a 
conspiracy against the happiness and reputation of Dr. 
Beecher and Mr. Barnes as individuals, but as the repro 
xentatives, as the Old School would have it, of the New 
School party. 

The results, however, were according to righteousness. 
1 p the case of Dr. Beecher, the prosecution was withdrawn 
by Dr. Wilson, the Prosecutor, because of the hopeless- 
ness of success. He had before been acquitted by his 
Presbytery nnd Synod, and to use Dr. Wilson's own words, 
of even "the suspicion of unsoundness in the faith." 

Mr. Barnes was acquitted by his own Presbytery; con- 
demned by the Synod ; but after a full and patient hear- 
ing, was triumphantly acquitted by the .General Assem- 
bly. 

According to Presbyterian ism, this ought to have been 
:i.n end of the matter. This was the result to which the 
prosecutors wished to arrive— in the language of Dr. Jun- 
kie, "their final adjustment by the proper judicatories of 
the church." And when this result was arrived at, Pres- 
bytersanism, ordination vows, and religion demanded of 
Die Old School acquiescence. Or, if they felt that they 
could not conscientiously do this, it was their duty peace- 
ably to withdraw from the church. But neither was 
done. The party went into a secret meeting ; a com- 



135 

mittee was appointed. That committee sent out the Se- 
cret Circular, and afterwards an Address, urging ttm£ 
these men, the majority, "must be separated from us.* 5 

In 1837, in the Old School Convention, the more car,* 
tious harped much upon doctrines, as if they cared not 
about majority or power. But a man might have an ob- 
ject in view, and from his declarations at the time, you 
might not see it. A Presbyterian elder once was tried by 
his session for cheating his neighbor in a horse-swop, 
his horse being diseased. The injured party urged, that 
the elder had assured him, that his horse was sound. The 
elder here manifested less caution than in making the 
trade, for he immediately contradicted the statement? 
ding "I was very guarded in my expressions." 

Mr. R. J. Breckinridge was both cautious and bold. 
In the Convention he was at times " very guarded" in his 
expressions. He would then declare; "This is a great 
controversy in which we are engrossed about doctrine and 
$rder" But in the negeciations of the committee of tea 
he was less guarded. And in this unguarded moment, he 
seemed to forget doctrine and order and to be thinking of 
power and predominance* In that committee he declared 
that: * If the New School did not accept the propositions 
of the Old School, he would the next day, in the General 
Assembly, move to excind a sufficient u umber of Synods 
from the General Assembly,, to secure thereafter, in that 
body, the preponderance of the Old School." McEIroy, 
p. 93. 

A similar declaration he made, m an unguarded mo- 
ment, on the floor of the General Assembly. 

The statements of Mr. Breckinridge are quoted, and 
regarded as important, because he was a master-spir 
those transactions — a gentleman whose commanding pow- 
ers were not sufficiently chastened by age and experience, 
and whose ecclesiastical course would suggest, that he had 
been an admirer of the saying of Euripides : u Nam si 
violandum est jus, regnandi gratia vioiandum est ; aliiaa 
rebus pictatem colas. " 

in the Memorial of the Convention of 1837, presented. 
;e Assembly, "doctrinal errors" occupied a conspicu- 
place. Sixteen, errors were specified which the 



136 

bciiool said were i; widely disseminated in the Presbyterian 
church." 

This part of the Memorial was adopted by the Assem- 
bly. 

A New School member offered as an amendment the 
condemnation of the four following errors, viz : 

"1. That men has no ability of any kind to obey God's 
commands or do his duty : 2. That ability is not neces- 
sary to constitute obligation : 3. That God may justly 
command what man has no ability to perform, and justly 
condemn him for the non-performance : 4. That all the 
powers of man to perform the duty required of him have 
been destroyed by the feU'*." 

This amendment struck at 1 some of the errors of the 
Old School, and of course, was not adopted. 

Jt will from this be seen, that the New School thought 
the Old School in error. This doctrine inculcated among 
the Old School, that ability is not necessary to constitute 
obligation, in connection with another of similar stamp, 
that for a large portion of the human race no salvation 
has been provided, has been considered highly A'ntinomi- 
an. The New School, as a body, steadily opposed such 
sentiments, and thought their opposition was based upon 
the word of God, as- well as the Confession of Faith. And 
though they differed with their Old School brethren on 
such points, yet they urged, that such differences had al- 
ways been tolerated in the church, and were not disposed 
to excind their erring brethren. 

That the doctrines of the Old School are tending to An* 
tinomianism, is acknowledged by persons in their own 
connection. A gentleman in the South, in connection 
with the Old School, notices the " Causes of religious de- 
clension at the South." Among the causes he alludes to 
doctrines. He says : " A persuasion that the mode of 
preaching at the North savors of Pelagianism and fanati- 
cism, has driven many at the South to verge toward an op- 
posite extreme. While the exaltation of human means has 
been regarded as a capital part of the heresies of the 
North, some preachers at the South have carried their no- 
tions of dependence so far as, to a common mind, seems to 

er closely upon the borders of fatalism.. This tenden- 



1OT 



:v o Anfi?iomiaj;isM has, within a short space, consider 
increased. Many of iheir preachers are believers and no 
vocates for the doctrine of particular redemption, the ob- 
vious inference from which is, that for a large portipi 
the' human race no salvation has been provided" See 
Christian Observer, July 16, 1841. 

This writer says, H many of the preachers" hold these 
sentiments. In justice to many others, it ought to be sta- 
ted that all their preachers do not believe or teach these 
doctrines. Ana! in reference to the members of the O: I 
School party, it may be safely asserted, that » he majority 
of them concur with the Constitutional party in reject 
these Antinomian tenets. 

On the subject of doctrinal' differences between the two 
parties, the New School challenged investigation in the 
General Assembly. But it was cut off by the call for the 
previous question, so " as to prevent all discussion. 5 ' Sco 
Protest of the Minority. 

i The New School portion of the Assembly being deBied 
investigation, and not holding the errors charged apori 
them, nor concuring with the Old School in their views 
of imputation, man's inability, the extent of the atone- 
ment, &c. protested against the action of the, Assettib.lv, 
and in their protest, they placed the ii true doctrines >" as 
held by them, in contrast with the errors charged upon 
them by the Old School. This part of the protest, in 
justice to both parties, ought to be given. It is as follows : 



FIRST ERF; OR. 

" That God would have pre- 
vented the existence of sin in our 
world, but was not able, without 
destroying the moral agency of 
man; or for ought that appears in 
the bible to the contrary, sin is in- 
cidental to any wise moral sys- 
tem/ 1 



TRUE DOCTRTXE. 

God permitted the introduction 

of sin, not because he was unable* 
to prevent it, consistently with the 
moral freedom of his creatures, b , t 
for wise and benevolent reasoi - 
which he has not revealed. 



SECOND ERROR. TRUE P0CTRI ,'E. 

" That election to eternal life is Election to eternal life is > 
founded on a foresight of faith and founded on a foresight of faith an ] 
obedience." obedience, but is a sovereign apt : 

God's mercy, whereby, according 
to the counsel of his o«n will, he 
has chosen some to salvation ; 
ik yet so as thereby neither is vie 
lence offered to the will of the 

12* 



138 



creature, nor is the -liberty* or con- 
tingency of second causes lake*: 
away, but rather established,''' nor 
does this gracious purpose ever 
take effect independently of faith 
and a holy life. 



THIRD ERROR; 

"That we have no more to do 
■srithvthe jurat, si |i of Adam, than 
v. itn the sins of any other parent." 



TRUE DCCTRIXZ; . 

JBy a divine constitution, Adam 
was so the head unci representative 
of the race, that, as a consequence 
of his transgression, all mankind 
became morally corrupt and liable 
to death temporal and eternal.. 



FOURTH ERROR. 

l " That infants come into the 
world as free from moral defile- 
ment, as was Adam, when he was 
treated."- 



true doctrine; 
Adam was created in the image 
of God, endowed with knowledge, 
righteousness, and true holiness. 
Infants come into the world not 
only destitute of these, but with a 
nature inciined to evil and only 
evil. . 



FIFTH ERROR. 

"That infants sustain the same 
relation to the moral government 
of God, in this world, as brute an- 
imals, and that their sufferings and 
death are to bo accounted lor on 
the same principles as those of 
:< s, and not by any means to 
I e c i ; ri si d ored as pena 1 . " 



TRUE DOCTRINE. 

Brute animals sustain no such 
relation to the moral government 
of God, as docs the human family. 
Infants are a part of the human 
family : and their sufferings and 
death are to he accounted for on 
the ground of their being involved 
in the general moral ruin of the 
race, ineuiced by the apos-tacy. 



SIX'fR 'ERROR. 

" That there is no other original 
sin than the fact that all the pos- 
terity of Adam, though by nature 
innocent, will always t>egin to sin, 
when they begin^ic exercise mor- 
al agency ; that original sin does 
not include, a sinful bias of the 
human mind, and a just exposure 
to penal sufferings, and that there 
is no evidence in Scripture, that 
infants, in order to salvation, do 
Based redemption by the blood of 
Christ, and regeneration by the 
Holy Ghost. 1 ? 



TRUE DOCTRINE. 

Original sin is a natural bias to 
evil, rc-ulting from the first apos- 
tacy, leading invariably and cer- 
tainly to- actual transgression. 
And all infants* as well as adults, 
in order to be saved, need redemp- 
tion by the blood of Christ, and 
regeneration by the Holy Ghost. 



SEVENTH ERROR. rRUE DOeTRTNVE. 

H Thar, the doctrine of imputa- The sin of Adam is not imputed • 

tion, whether of the guilt of Ad- to his posterity in the sense of a 

. na's sin or of the righteousness of literal transfer of personal qualities, 

Christ, has no foundation in the acts and demerits ; but by reason 

void of (rod, is both unjust and of the sin of Adam, in his peculiar 

d »J relation, the race arc treated, as if. 



m 



ihpy had sinned. Nor is the right=- 
eonsness of" Christ imputed to his - 
people, in the sense of a literal 
transfer of personal qualities, acts,- 
or merits; but by reason of his 
righteousness, in his peculiar rela- 
tion, they are treated as- if they 
were righteous. 



-Th 
of Cfer: 

and per 

mental 



EIGHTH ERROR. 

at the sufferings and death 
st were not truly vicarious 
.ial, hut symbolical, govern- 
. and instructive only. 



TRUE DOCTRINE. 

The sufferings and death of 
Christ were not symbolical, gov- 
ernmental, and instructive oniyv 
but were truly vicarious, i. e. a saS— 
stitute for the punishment due to 
transgressors. And, while Christ 
did not suffer the literal penalty of 
tii&law, involving remorse of con- 
science, and the pains of hell, he did 
offer a sacrifice, which infinite wis- 
dom saw to be a full equivalent. 
And by virtue of this atonement, 
overtures of mercy are sincerely 
made to the race,and salvation se- 
cured to all who believe. 



NINTH ERROR. 

'•That the impenitent sinner is 
by nature, and independently of 
the renewing influence, or almigh- 
ty energy of the Holy Spirit, in full 
possession of all the ability neces- 
sary to a full compliance^ with all 
the commands of God." 



TRUE DOCTRINE 

While sinners have all the facul- 
ties necessary to a perfect moral a- 
gency, and a just accountability,, 
such is their love of sin and oppo- 
sition to God and his law, that, in- 
dependently of the renewing influ- 
ence of almighty energy of the Ko- 
ly Spirit, they never will comply 
with the commands of God. 



TENTH" ERROR. 

" ; That Christ does not intercede 
for the elect until after their re- 
generation." 



TRUE DOCTRINE. 

The intercession of Christ for 
the elect is previous as well as sub- 
sequent to their regeneration, as- 
appears from the following Scrip- 
ture, viz.: ' ; I pray not for the world, 
but for them that thou hast given 
me, for they are thine : neither^ 
pray I for these alone but for them 
also, which shall believe on me 
through thy word." 



ELEVENTH ERROR. 

"That saving faith is not an ef- 
fect of the operation of the Holy 
Spirit, but a mere rational belief of 
the truth, or assent to the word of 

God," 



TRUE DOCTRINE. 

Saving faith is an intelligent and 
cordial assent to the testimony of 
God concerning his Son, implying, 
reliance on Christ alone for pardon 
and eternal life j and in all cases- 



140 



it is an effect of the special opera- 
tions of the liol y Spirit. 



TWELFTH ERROR. 

"That reg. neration is the act of 
the sinner himself, and that it con- 
sists in the change of his govern- 
ing purpose which lie himself must 
produce, and which is the result, 
not of any direct influence of the 
Holy Spirit on the heart, but chief- 
ly of a persuasive exhibition of the 
truth, analagous to the influence, 
which one man exerts over the 
mind of another; or that regen- 
eration is not an instantaneous- 
act, but a progressive work." 



TRUE DOCTRINE. 

regeneration is a radical change 
of the heart, produced by the spe- 
cial operations of the Holy Spirit, 
determining the sinner to that 
which is good," and is in all cases 
instantaneous. 



THIRTEENTH ERROR. 

"Thai God has done all that he 
can do for the salvation of all men, 
and that man himself must do the 
pest/ 1 



TRUE DOCTRINE. 

While repentance for sin and 
faith in Christ are indispensable 
to salvation, all who are saved 
are indebted from the first to the 
last to the grace and sp rit of God. 
And the reason that God does not 
save all, is not that he wants the 
power to do it, but that in his^wis- 
dom he does not see fit to exert 
that power further than he actu- 
ally does. 



FOURTEENTH ERROR. 

"That God cannot exert such 
influence on the minds of men, as 
shall make it certain, that^ they 
will choose and act in a particular 
manner, without impairing their 
moral agency." 



TRUE DOCTRINE. 

While the liberty of the will is 
not impaired, nor the established 
connexion between means and end 
broken by any action of God on 
the mind, he can influence it ac- 
cording: to his pleasure, and does 
effectually determine it to good in 
all cases of true conversion. 



FIFTEENTH ERROR. 

That the righteousness of Christ 
is not the sole ground of the sin- 
ner's acceptance with God ; and 
that in no sense does the righteous- 
ness of Christ become ours.' 1 



TRUE DOCTRINE. 

All believers are justified, not on 
the ground of personal merit, but 
solely on the ground of the obedi- 
ence and death, or, in other words, 
the righteousness of Christ. And 
while that righteousness does not 
become, theirs, in the sense of a 
literal transfer ol personal quali- 
fies and merit ; yet from respect 
to it, God can, and does treat them 
as if they were righteous. 



SIXTEENTH ERFOR. 

"That the reason why some dif- 



TRUE DOCTRINE. 

While all such as reject the Gos- 



141 

fer from others in regard to their pel of Christ, doit, not by coercion- 
reception of the Gospel, is that hut freely— and all who embrace 
they make themselves to differ, 1 ' it, doit not by coercion but freely — 

the reason why some differ from 
others-is, God has- made them to 
differ." 

In the above itvvill be seen, that what is headed "er- 
ror," is what the Old School charge upon the New School ; 
what is headed " true doctrine," is what the New School 
really hold on that point., 

Here then was a denial, by the representatives of the 
New School portion of the church,, of the errors charged, 
upon thsm, and an avowal of their " real sentiments." 
With them, it might have been expected the great mass of 
the Presbyterian church would have been satisfied. But- 
strange as it may appear, the Old School portion of the. 
Assembly pretended to see great heresy in the 4i True Doc- 
trines" of the New School. They even enjoined it upon, 
their Presbyteries to try the signers of the " True Doc- 
trines" for heresy, as will appear from the following res- 
olution of the Assembly, viz :-. 

" Resolved, That duly certified copies of this paper be 
sent to the respective Presbyteries to which the signers of 
the protest, belong, calling their attention to the develop- 
ments of theological views contained in it, enjoining on^ 
them to enquire into the soundness of the faith of those 
who have ventured to make so strange avowals as some of 
these are." 

In the controversy about doctrine, the Old School re- 
sorted to much unfairness, to make an impression unfa- 
vorable to Constitutional Presbyterians. They imputed to 
the New School all the sins-and errors of New Haven and- 
Oberlin— Dr. Taylor and Mr. Einney — as if these institu- 
tions or ministers had any connection with the Presbyteri- 
an Chuich. 

The Old School have also exhibited much inconsistency*. 
One instance will suffice. The Editor of the Charleston 
Observer is an Old School man. But before the division 
of the Assembly in 1838, he was willing to do the New 
School justice. Before the division he had no party to 
serve, whether right or wrong. He then could say of 
Charleston Union Presbytery, the large majority of which 



142 

was called New School: u There is no discrepancy in this 
Presbytery on questions of doctrine." But since the di- 
vision, he calls the ministers of Charleston Union Presby- 
tery, " the Pelagians of Charleston." 

The same Editor, before the division, did not consider 
Dr. Beman, Mr. Barnes and ether prominent New School 
men heretical; After quoting largely from their writings* 
he says positively : "If there be heresy hi them, we are 
not sufficiently sagacious to discern it," But now the 
church is divided, and the interests of the other party de- 
mand that the New School be loaded and sunk with re- 
proaches. And now this Editor can refer to the same 
writings to prove that the New School are " Pelagians," 
and teach "another Gospel." Upon what principles the 
Editors of Old School papers would justify such unfair- 
ness and inconsistency, is not for us to say. 

In this controversy, the Old School have charged upon 
the New School opinions which they have uniformly de- 
nied. To this the Old School have said: " If the body of 
the New School are not in error, some of their prominent 
men are." They then point to Mr. Barnes. But Mr, 
Barnes was acquitted before the division of the church ;- 
and if the New School are chargeable with heresy for 
voting, in 1836, for the restoration of Mr. Barnes, so are 
some of the most prominent Old School men, as Dr. Miller 
and others. 

In this controversy, the New School always professed 
their readiness for investigation or trial. And while one 
party charged the other with holding sentiments tending 
to Arminiamsm and Pelagianism, they in turn were be- 
lieved to hold sentiments tending to Antinomianism. When, 
the errors,. such as aro contained in the sixteen specifica- 
tions were stated, the New School party said — prove them 
upon any one and we will help you in turning him out. 
But the proof was lacking* 

Indeed, it was found almost impossible to bring the Old 
School up to the real points of difference. In the Assem- 
bly of 1837, when the subject of " Doctrinal Errors" 
a/ne up, all investigation was cut off by the call for the 
previous question. Yet the New School, in their protest, 
were enabled indirectly to bring the Old School to them. 
And if any one should be curious on the subject of the 



143 

real differences between the Schools, he may form a pretty 
correct opinion from the " True Doctrines 15 of the New 
School, and the action of the Old School in reference to 
them. The New School, in the Assembly, said, these are 
our " real sentiments." And in the Auburn Convention, 
they said: " This Convention cordially disapprove and 
cordemn the list of errors condemned by the late Assem- 
bly, and adopt, as the expression of their own sentiments., 
and as they believe the prevalent sentiments of the church- 
es in these Synods on the points in question, the list of 
1 true doctrines' adopted by the minority of said Assembly 
in their protest on this subject." See New York Observ- 
er, October 7, 1837. 

The Old School, however, regarded the " True Doc- 
trines" as heresy, and enjoined it upon their Presbyteries 
4o try the signers. On these points, therefore, the parties 
were fairly at issue. Thus the real points of difference 
were reached at last, so far as the New School were 
concerned. And had the Old School come out and avow- 
ed their real .sentiments — limited atonement, &c. their 
Presbyteries would have had an opportunity of deciding 
which party was the most orthodox. 

Here the controversy about doctrine mainly ceased. 
Not a single Presbytery obeyed the injunction of the Old 
School, in trying the signers of the " True Doctrines" for 
heresy. This resolution savored so much of infatuation^ 
that the Old School soon became ashamed of it ; and no 
Assembly since seems to have inquired whether its injunc- 
tion has been complied with or not. 

Notwithstanding all that has been said, the impression 
lias sometimes been made, that Constitutional Presbyteri- 
ans have rejected the Confession of Faith. In reply to 
this, it is necessary only to quote one or two official de- 
clarations of the Constitutional Assembly. During their 
session in 1838, the following resolution was adopted 
unanimously : 

" That it be, and hereby is recommended to all the 
Presbyteries to take special pains to have the book con- 
taining the Confession of Faith and Form of Government 
of the Presbyterian Church of the United States of Ameri- 
ca more generally circulated among the churches under 
/their care/' 



344 

The same Assembly, in their Pastoral Letter, say: "We 
love and honor the Confession of Faith of the Presbyteri- 
an Church, as containing more well defined, fundamental 
truth, with less defect, than appertains to any other hu- 
man formula of doctrine, and as calculated to hold in in- 
telligent concord a greater number of sanctified minds, than 
any which could now be formed, and we disclaim all de- 
sign, past, present and future, to change it." 
- Whether or not all the noise the Old School made about 
■doctrine, was for the sake of doctrine, or to alarm the 
ichurches for the attainment of other objects, must be left 
<to the impartial and to posterity to decide* 



( 145 | 



CHAPTER XIX. 

THE AUBURN CONVENTION 



After the close ©f the Assembly of 1837, it was soon. 
ascertained, that the excinded Synods and other large 
portions of the church, regarded the measures of that As- 
sembly as revolutionary and unconstitutional, and design- 
ed to divide the church; ©r in the language of the Reform 
Assembly of 1838, "to affect this separation.''' 

The church was, by these reforming and revolutionary 
measures, thrown into a deep state of alarm and confusion. 
The friends of Constitutional liberty were bewildered. 
As was to be expected, they could not entirely agree 
among themselves, as to what ought to be done in the un- 
expected and fearful crisis. They saw that the Reform- 
ers, taking advantage of an accidental majority, had laid 
their plans to disfranchise the party which had hitherto 
been the majority. Some=, seeing that the Reformers had 
taken advantage of them in the mere assumption of powd- 
er, were for hanging on to the party, hoping they 
would see their error. Some were for standing aloof from 
the contending parties. Some were for planting them- 
selves upon the constitution, and meeting the crisis with 
firmness. The great portion were of the latter class. 

The first movement towards concert of action was the 
Convention which met at Auburn, in the State of New 
York, on the 17th of August, 1837. There were in at- 
tendance nearly two hundred ministers and eiders. The 
reform measures were fully discussed. In reference 
to the excision, the following resolution was passed, viz.: 

"Resolved, That in the judgment of this Convention, 
the acts of the last General Assembly, declaring the Syn- 
ods of Western Reserve, Utica, Geneva, and Genessee, 
not to be constitutional parts of the Prresbvterian Church, 
13 



148 

on the ground that their connexion was dependent on the 
Plan of Union of 1801, and upon charges vague and un- 
supported, were unconstitutional, and therefore in the 
opinion of this Convention, null and void/' 

In support of the foregoing resolution many reasons 
weie assigned. 

A hw extracts will exhihit the attitude of that body. 
They say : «*The act complained of lias, without hear- 
ing and without trial, without charges even, deprived a 
v-st number of Presbyterian members of all connexion 
with that church, and declares them "neither in form nor 
in fact" members thereof. 

"The constitution has made ample provisions for the 
redress of all grievances which it was supposed would 
arise in the church; and especially for the correction of 
any error in doctrine or irregularity in practice, whether 
existing in the individual members or in the bodies organi- 
zed under the constitution. The mode of doing this is 
fully and clearly defined in that instrument. An attempt, 
then, to correct and alleged error or irregularity in any 
other mode than that pointed out by the constitution or 
compact into which all had entered, is usurpation ; if 
h produce oppression, it is tyranny ; in its character, and 
tendency it is and must inevitably be subversive of all 
good and righteous government and order ; and may 
properly be classed with those acts of lawless violence re- 
cently so disgracefully frequent in our country, and whose 
jusiificatioii is attempted alone upon the plea of "the ne- 
cessity of the case," or the still more unrighteous plea 
that "the end justifies the meaiis" 

"In a government of laws,, no necessity can ever exist 
for trampling those laws in the dust, and disregarding their 
requirements. If such acts be done, they are either re- 
bellion or revolution or both." See New York Observer, 
October 7, 1837. 

There is one point made clear by the Auburn Conven- 
tion, which goes to show, that in reference to the three 
Synods in New York, the General Assembly based their 
excision upon falsely assumed facts. The excluding reso- 
lution assumes, that these Synods "were formed and attach- 
ed" to the Assembly "under and in execution of" the 
of Union of 1801. The Convention, in denying this, 



147 

say : ''The whole of the territory, embracing the three 
Synods of New York, came into connexion with the Pres- 
byterian Church, so far as they were Congregationulists, 
not tinder the Plan of TJni&n of 1801, but under a plan 
of union and correspondence made in 1807 between the 
Synod of Albany on the one part, and the Northern Asso- 
ciated Presbytery and the Middle Association on the pth- 
er, which plan was subsequently submitted to the General 
Assembly ; and by them considered, sanctioned and adopt- 
ed in 1808, and has never been objected to or abrogated . n 

The documents on this subject are too lengthy for inser- 
tion here. Let the reader, if he would be more fully 
satisfied, turn to the New York Observer, September 2, 
and October 7, 1837. 

The plan was regarded as a special compact between 
the Synod of Albany and the Middle Association. By it 
the Middle Association became a constituent part of the 
Synod of Albany, and the ministers and delegates of 
churches belonging to the Association were admitted into 
the Synod with all the rights and privileges of ministers 
and elders of their Presbyteries. In speaking, therefore* 
of the churches within the bounds of the three Synods, 
they say : "Their connexion with the General Assembly 
has no reference to the Plan of Union of 1801 ; and hence 
the abrogation of that plan could not, in the slightest de- 
gree, effect the standing of these churches, or destroy 
their relation to the v General Assembly." 

The Assembly might, with as much propriety, have 
abrogated the Adopting Act of 1729, and then declared, 
that in consequence of that abrogation, the three Synods 
are "out of the ecclesiastical connexion of the Presbyte- 
rian church." Or admitting the plan of 1801 to be un- 
constitutional, they might as well have declared, that the 
Synod of Philadelphia is "out of the Presbyterian 
Church." 

Therefore, the history of these events show, that these 
three Synods were cut off for a reason that had no exist- 
ence in fact. But the advocates of excision, when re- 
minded of this, urged that, though the plan of 1808 was 
jaot abrogated, yet it was of the same character. In their 
answer to the protest of the excinded they say: "The 
compact of the Assembly of 1808, with the' Synod of AU 



M8 

t>any, in reference to the Middle Association, is as uncon- 
stitutional as the Plan of Union of 1801. " But admitting 
it was as unconstitutional, it was not abrogated, and the 
three Synods were cut off, because another plan was abro- 
gated, with which they had no more connexion than with 
the plan of union of 1691. 

After the close of the Auburn Convention, it was un- 
derstood that the Constituional party designed to act with 
the Reformers in the Assembly of 1838, provided the or- 
ganization of a General Assembly could be effected by 
admitting the Commissioners from the excinded Synods. 

The position of the parties was such, however, that very 
little hope could be indulged that they could longer act 
together. The Reformers seemed to rejoice that division 
had commenced and would be carried out. Still the 
friends of the constitution hoped, that if the two parties 
could not act together, some amicable mode of division 
could be devised which would prevent the alienation and 
bitterness of a violent dismemberment of the body. In 
this condition things remained till the meeting of the As- 
sembly of 1838.. 



( 140 ) 



GHAPTER XX. 



THE ASSEMBLY OF 1838— THE DIVISION OF THE CRlh 
—THE TUMULT IN TH£ ORGANIZATION OF THE AS- 
SEMBLY. 



A few days before the meeting of the Assembly, in 
1838, both parties met in Convention in Philadelphia. The 
Constitutional Convention was open to all the Commis- 
sioners to the General Assembly, and was attended by a 
few of the other party. The invitation was to all, as ap-* 
pears from the notice, which was given in the new spa* 
pers, signed by some of the reformed party* See McEl* 
roy's Report, p. 91. 

The other Convention was a party organization. ••The 
distinct basis on which the meeting was organized was, 
that its members were prepared to sustain the general 
course of the last Assembly in the reform of the church.' 
"It was unanimously resolved, that in the opinion of the 
meeting, the reform measures of the last Assembly should 
be fully sustained." See W. P. Herald, May 31, 1838. 

While the two parties were in Convention, the Consti- 
tutional party sent the following overture for pacification 
to the other party : 

"Resolved, That while we regard with dee]> sorrow the* 
existing difficulties in our beloved church, we would fondly 
hope that there are no insurmountable obstacles in the way 
of averting the calamities- of a violent dismemberment, and 
of securing such an organization as may avoid collisions, 
and secure the blessings of a perpetuated, harmonious 
action. 

"Resolved-, That we are ready to co-operate in any ef- 
forts which are constitutional, and which shall recogni:-? 
the regular standing, and secure the rights of the en ; 



150 

cTnrreft,. i ^eluding those portions which the acts of the last 
General Assembly were intended to exclude." 

In the reply to the foregoing we find the following: 

" Whereas, the resolutions of the "meeting," while 
they profess a readiness 'to co-operate, in any efforts 
for pacification which are constitutional,' manifestly pro- 
ceed on the erroneous supposition, that 'the acts of the 
General Assembly declaring the four Synods of the 
Western Reserve, Utica, Geneva and Genessee, out of the 
ecclesiastical connexion of our church, were unconstitu- 
tional and invalid ; and the Convention cannot for a mo- 
ment consent to consider them in that light, therefore, 

"Resolved, unanimously, that the Convention regard the 
said overture of the 'meeting,' however intended, as found- 
ed on a basis which is wholly inadmissible, and as calcula- 
ted only to disturb that peace of our church, which a calm 
and firm adherence to those constitutional, just, and neces- 
sary acts of the last General Assembly can alone, by the 
blessing of Divine Providence, establish and secure." See 
W. P. Herald, May 31, 1838. 

The Constitutional party declared their 7 anxiety for pa- 
cification, if any plan could be devised, which would be 
"constitutional " and which would "secure the rights" of 
the excinded. 

The Reformers affected to take umbrage at the word, 
"constitutional" as if the overture had pronounced their 
acts unconstitutional. But any one can see, that the word,. 
"constitutional" was used in reference to the desired plan- 
of pacification. This excuse was, therefore, mere sub* 
terfuge. Indeed, it seems they had no idea of "pacific 
cation" except on the principles of passive obedience and 
non-resistance; for they had already "unanimously re- 
solved, that in the opinion of the meeting, the reform meas- 
ures of the last Assembly sluould be fully sustained." 

Thus the parties stood in reference to each other, when 
the Gc nera! Assembly met in Philadelphia, on the 17th 
of May, 1838. Common fame had excited much curiosity 
as to the scenes which were to be acted when the body 
mot. Tho Assembly was large and a great concourse of 
spectators were present. 

The Assembly met in the Seventh Presbyterian church- 
At au early hour, the Reformers were found ia a body 






near the pulpit, and?, the two doors near the Moderator** 
chair locked. The Constitutional party generally took 
their seats farther hack in the church. 

,Dr. Elliot, the Moderator of the previous year, preached 
the sermon. At the close, he announced, that the General 
Assembly would be constituted with prayer. After prayer,, 
and before the Clerk had made 'his report on the roll, Dr. 
Patton offered the following preamble and resolutions : 

" Whereas, the General Assembly of 1837, adopted 
certain resolutions intended to deprive certain Presbyteries 
of the right to be represented in the General Assembly : 
and whereas, the more fully to accomplish their purpose, 
the said Assembly of 1837 did require and receive from, 
their Clerks a pledge or promise, that they would, in 
making out the roll of Commissioners to constitute the 
General Assembly of 1833, omit to introduce therein the 
names of Commissioners from said Presbyteries : and 
whereas, the said Clerks, having been requested by Com- 
missioners from the said Presbyteries to receive their com- 
missions and enter their names on the roll of the General 
Assembly of 1838l, now about to be organized, have re- 
fused to receive and enter the same, Therefore, 

1. Resolved, That such attempts on the part of the 
General Assembly of 1837, and their Clerks, to direct 
and control rhe_ organization of the General Assembly of 
1838, are unconstitutional, and in derogation of its just 
rights as the general representative judicatory of the 
whole Presbyterian church in the United States of Amer- 
ica. 

2. Resolved, That the General Assembly cannot be 
legally constituted except by admitting to seats, and to 
equality of powers, in the first instance, all Commission- 
ers, who present the usual evidences of their appointment ;. 
and that it is the duty of the Clerks, and they are hereby 
directed to form the roll of the General Assembly of 1838, 
by including therein the names of all Commissioners from 
Presbyteries belonging to the said Presbyterian church* 
not omitting the Commissioners from the several Presby- 
teries within the bounds of the Synods of Utica, Geneva, 
Genessee, and the Western Reserve; and in all things to 
form, the said roll according to the known practice and es- 



152 

tablished usage of previous Generai Assemblies. " McEI- 
roy's Report, p. 85. 

The Moderator informed Dr. Patton that he was out of 
order, as the first business was the report on the roll. It 
was then stated, that the resolutions related to the forma- 
tion of the roll. The iModerator then said the Clerk had 
the floor. Dr. Patton replied that he had the floor be- ' 
fore the Clerk. The Moderator again declared him out of 
order. Dr. Patton then appealed from the decision of the 
chair. But the Moderator declared the appeal out of or- 
der, and Dr. Patton took his seat without reading the 
resolutions. 

The clerk then read the roll of the Commissioners, ex- 
cluding those from the excinded Synod 5 *. 

After that, the Moderator announced that if there were 
other Commissioners, whose names had not been entered on 
the roll, they coulduhen present them. 

Dc. Mason then rose and said : " Mr. Moderator, I hold 
in my hand a number of commissions, which have been re- 
jected by the Clerks: I now tender them to the house, and 
move that the names be added to the roll." The motion was- 
seconded. The Moderator asked if they were from Pres- 
byteries belonging to the Presbyterian Church. Dr. Ma- 
son replied, they were from the Synods of Utica, Geneva, 
Genessee and Western Reserve. The Moderator declared 
the motion to receive those commissions was out of order- 
From this decision Dr. Mason said he would appeal to ihe 
house. The appeal was seconded. But the Moderator 
declared the appeal was out of order. 

These were, to be sure, strange decisions, when it is re- 
membered that the rules of the house say : " The ques- 
tion on the appeal shall be taken." 

When Dr. Mason had taken his seat, Rev. Miles P. 
Squirer, a Commissioner from one of the excinded Synods, 
rose and stated to the Moderator, that he had a commis- 
sion, which had been presented to the Clerks and rejected 
by them, and that he now presented it to the house. When 
the Moderator learned from him that he came from the ex- 
cinded region, he said : " We do not know you, sir." Mr* 
Squirer then took his seat. 

What now could be done ? It was evident, the Mode- 
rator and Clerks had conspired to prevent a constitutional 



153 

organization of the Assembly. The Moderator would 
put no motion to the house, however orderly it might be, 
which did not favor a party organization. He would al- 
low no appeal from his decisions* Business was at a stand, 
except the wire-working of the Moderator and Clerks, 
who were doubtless doing as their Convention had directed 
~them. It was necessary that the meeting should organ- 
ize, and it was necessary that some other person should 
put a motion to the house. This was done. The Rev. 
John P. Cleaveland rose and stated in substance :. " Thai 
as the Commissioners to the General Assembly for 1838, 
from a large number of Presbyteries, had been refused 
their seats ; and as we had been advised by counsel learn- 
ed in the law, that a constitutional organization of tho 
Assembly must be secured at this time and this place, he 
trusted it would not be considered as an. act of discourtesy* 
but merely as a matter of necessity, if we now proceed to 
organize the General Assembly of 1838, m the fewest 
words,, the shortest time*, and with the least interruption 
practicable. He therefore moved that Dr. Beman, from 
the Presbytery of Troy, be Moderator, to preside till a 
new Moderator be chosen." w 

The motion was seconded, and then put to the house by 
Mr. Cleaveland. It was carried by a large majority of 
those who voted, only a few voting in the negative. 

Dr. Mason and Rev. E. W. Gilbert were chosen Clerks* 
Dr. Beman then stated that the next business before the 
house was the election of Moderator. The Eev. Dr. Fish- 
er was nominated and duly elected. 

Dr. Fisher then took the station which had been occupi- 
ed by Dr. Beman, and called for business. The Rev. Dr* 
Mason and Rev. Mr. Gilbert were chosen stated and per- 
manent Clerks. A motion was .made and carried, that 
the General Assembly now adjourn to meet forthwith in 
the session room of the First Presbyterian Church. 

The Reformers remained and formed another Assem- 
bly. And the division of the church was accomplished. 

It has been objected against the organization of the As- 
sembly, that it was the result of a plan ; and the impres- 
sion has often been made, that the plan was laid in cun- 
ning and secrecy. But is was proposed and adopted in 
open, day, with open doors, and the Reformers were ap- 



154 

prised of it, as appears from the following statement in 
reference to their Convention : " In the Old School Con- 
vention this afternoon, information was received, that the 
members of the other Ccmvention, by a vote nearly unani- 
mous : 

. Resolved, That if any of their party should be refused 
seats in the General Assembly, about to be constituted on 
the morrow, they will themselves organize a General As- 
sembly at the same place at the proper hour." W. P. 
Herald, May 31, 1838. 

It will be remembered that on the 15th of May, the 
Constitutional party made their overtures for an amicable 
arrangement, which was rejected bythe other party. The 
next day [the 16th] the Reformers are in possession of the 
plan which the Constitutional party intended to pursue to 
secure their rights. 

The- resolution referred to was in these words : 

" Resolved, That, should a portion of the Commission- 
ers to the next General Assembly attempt to organize the 
Assembly, without admitting to their seats Commission- 
ers from all the Presbyteries recognized in the organiza- 
tion of the Assembly of 1837, it will then be the duty of 
the Commissioners present to organize the General As* 
sembly of 1838, in all respects according to the Constitu- 
tion, and so transact all other necessary business conse- 
quent upon such organization. " See Cincinnati Journal, 
June 28, 1838. 

It seems, however, that the Reformers expected, by tak- 
ing possession of the Seventh Church, as a Convention, 
before the other party could get in on the morning of the 
meeting of the Assembly, together with the aid of the 
resolutions of the Trustees of the Seventh Church, allow- 
ing the house only to a Reform: Assembly, that they would 
be able to prevent a Constitutional organization. 

An objection has been urged against the organization of 
the Assembly, that " Mr. Cleaveland had no right to put 
the question to the house." To this it has been replied, 
that he had the right, according to the usage of ail bodies, 
when the officers are absent, or refuse to do their duty. 
The Moderator is the servant rather than the master of a 
deliberative body. He possesses delegated power, for tho 
/ reservation of order, and directing operations according 



155 

to ike rules of the body. He is put in the chair, not to 
prevent the orderly operations of business and to create 
disorder, not to make new rules or nulify old ones, but 
that he, as well as the members, may observe the rules of 
the body. And whenever a Moderator sets himself above 
the law, and refuses to organize the body, according to its 
rules, he forfeits his place. This is a correct principle in 
all deliberative Assemblies of freemen. 

On this point the Editor of the Presbyterian wished to 
make a false issue. He said : " Suppose a member of 
Congress should rise in his place, after the house was or- 
ga?iized, and should offer a motion and put it, would it not 
be ridiculous ?" This was not the case in point. Mr. 
Cleaveland made and put his motion before the organiza- 
tion of the house, while the Moderator of the previous 
Assembly was in the chair pro. tern, according to usage, 
till the Assembly could be organized. 

But to make a supposition in point : Suppose in Con- 
gress, before the organization of the house, a person put 
pro. tern, in the chair, a chairman or a clerk, should set 
himself above all law, hesitate to enrol members, refuse 
to put motions or appeals to the house, or to organize ac- 
cording to usage. What would Congress do in such a case? 
Wouid they be obliged to submit to the usurpation or ob- 
stinacy of the officer, and only discuss such subjects as he 
would propose, or take such action as he would allow I It 
has so turned out that, since that time, Congress has been 
called to act in such a case ; and the public are not left 
to guess what Congress would do under such circum- 
stances. 

The twenty sixth Congress met on the second of De- 
cember, 1839. According to the laws and constitution of 
the United States, the clerk of the House of Representa- 
tives takes the chair till the organization of the body is 
completed. The clerk, at the proper time and place, 
when the members came together, commenced calling the 
roll. He proceeded with the States till he came to New 
Jersey. He then proposed passing over her representa- 
tives, as their seats wouid be contested. Her representa- 
tives were whigs. The clerk was an administration man. 
Passing over these members would probably give to the 
clerk's party the bailan.ce of power in the organization — 



153 

election of speaker, &c. Here business came to a stand. 
The clerk was unwilling to proceed, except in his own 
way. On the fourth day, Mr. Adams rose and said: 

'* Fellow-citizens and members elect of the Twenty 
Sixth Congress of the United States: I address myself to 
you and not to the clerk in the chair, under a painful sense 
of my own duty, The clerk has said he will not proceed 
in the call, according to established usage and custom. Fie 
discovered yesterday that he might put the question of 
adjournment. He therefore put it ; but he gave notice 
that he should put no other question. Fellow-citizens, in 
what predicament are we thus placed ? We are fixed as 
firmly and as immovably as these columns around the 
house. We can neither go forward nor backward, and 
the clerk tells us that he will persist in both the decisions 
he has made. We must organize. If there is difficulty 
in relation to any portion of us, we must do what Mr. 
Jefferson said was done when Lord Dunmore dissolved the 
legislature of Virginia on a sudden. What did they do 1 
They adjourned to a tavern — they constituted themselves 
a convention, and they acted as the legislature of the state 
or colony. They actually, instead of being assembled in 
the place from which the act of the Governor had exclu- 
ded them, adjourned to another place, formed themselves 
into a convention, and there acted in the name of the State. 
I call upon you, in the name of the people, to organize. I 
call upon the House to set aside entirely his decisions, and 
to act for themselves. I have no doubt of their power to 
doit. Therefore, in submitting this proposition, I have no 
reference to the clerk, nor to any opinion of his. I pro- 
pose that the House itself should act. It may, if it pleas- 
es, choose a temporary clerk." 

These extracts from Mr. Adam's speech will show how 
Congress-men feel in a case in which an officer refuses to 
do his duty. Mr. Adams was repeating his call upon the 
House to act, regardless of the gentleman in the chair, 
when he was interrupted by many members asking : "How 
shall the question be put V\ — " Who will put the ques- 
tion V Mr. Adams replied, raising his voice above the 
tumult : " I intend to put the question." Mr. Adams was 
accordingly soon nominated and elected to act as chair* 



157 

man, till t'he House could be organized and a speaker ap* 
pointed. 

Here is, then, a case in point. Has any one contended 
that Mr. Adams had no right to put the question ? [fas 
any one said that the Twenty Sixth Congress was not 
constitutionally organized, because the gentleman in the 
chair was removed and another put in his place ? 

And how very similar the two organizations. The 
moderator of one body and the clerk of the other, accor- 
ding to law, were acting as chairmen till the organization 
of the bodies, and the election of presiding officers. The 
chairman of each body refuses to enrol certain member.:' 
claiming seats, with commissions in proper form. They 
refuse to put motions bearing upon the roll. Mr. Cleave- 
land in one body, and Mr. Adams in the other, rise and 
call upon the members to organize — to act regardless cf 
the decisions of the chair, and appoint other officers who 
will organize according to law and usage. And the thing 
was done. There was opposition, and cries of order from 
those who were opposed to the organizations. But the 
voices of Mr. Adams and Mr. Cleaveland rose above the 
swelling tumult — above the cries of order, the coughing 
and scraping of the opposition, and were heard by all who 
wanted to hear. 

It is a matter of history, that there was confusion and 
noise in the organisation of the Assembly. The effort 
was made by leading men among the Reform party to 
fasten the odium of the tumult upon the Constitutional pn> 
stf> On this point, also, it is but fair that the Reformers 
should be heard. The " Presbyterian, 5 ' it would seem, 
was satisfied that the " Slew School" had " utterly dis- 
graced themselves" The reason is thus given: "Mr. 
■Cleaveland rose, and with a disregard to all decorum, sel- 
dom witnessed in any place, proceeded, in defiance .of all 
the authority of the moderator, to read the resolution.. 
The New School party then rose in a most disorderly 
manner, yelling and shouting, and voting, pretending 1q 
organize by the appointment of a moderator and clerk, and 
;then, amidst the clapping of a dozen or two of their par- 
ity, retired to the Rev. Mr. Barnes' church, crying out as 
they retired : ' The General Assembly of the Presbyteri- 
an Church will meet in the First Prebv-erian Church." 
14 



158 



With this he then contrasts the conduct of the "Reformers: 
4 They remained quiet in their seats during this outrage/ 
See YV\ P. Herald, May 31st, 1838. 

The Pittsburgh Christian Herald, another Reform pa- 
jjf\r, thus closes his notice of -the affair : " This ridiculous 
and riotous farce was concluded with stamping and clap- 
ping, as if they had obtained a great victory, which they 
certainly did over common decency and common sense. 
It is gratifying to add, that except the declaration of the 
moderator, that they were out of order* which was mildly 
and decorously announced, there was not an act or a word 
by any member of our house, and to hear the screams of 
aye at the different votes, and see and hear the mobbish 
manner in which the whole was conducted and concluded 
was far bevond what I ever witnessed before." See W. 
P. Herald, May 31st, 1838. 

The Editor of the W. P. Herald, May 31, 1838, denom- 
inated the organization of the Assembly u a riot". He 
said : " That gentlemen of respectability — that Presbyte- 
rian ministers and ruling elders of decent character should 
have deliberately formed and attempted to execute a scheme 
at once so indecent, vulgar and ridiculous, is, we firmly 
believe, a thing without a parallel. Their partisans may 
call, it by what name they please, but we are well satisfied. 
that ail calm and decent people will call it a riot, and noth- 
ing more or less can be made of it." 

Mr. Hawthorn, a Reformer from Kentucky, said : " Mr. 
t leaveland demanded to be permitted to read his paper, 
ani in the midst of loud cries of order, he proceeded. 
Then ensued a .scene of confusion unparalleled in the 
meetings of the Assembly. 1 must, however, be permitted 
to say that it was almost exclusively among the New 
School party and the spectators.-" See V¥. P. Herald, 
y31, 1838. 

. will be seen that these naratives differ in one point- 
about the confusion. The Pittsburgh Herald declares that 
M there was not an a,ct or a word by any member" among 
the Reformers, " except the declaration of the moderator, 
which was mildly and decorously announced." But Mr. 
Hawthorn says, that Mr. Cleaveland proceeded to read hi* 
p;iper M in the midst of loud cries of order" from the 
Jicformefsrof course. 



159 

To judge, however, of the correctness of the foregoing 
statements, other sources of information should be referred 
tov Tho American Sentinel, a political daily paper of Phi- 
ladelphia,- said : " This body met yesterday at the place 
appointed by the Assembly of last year. The various n - 
mors which were afloat in the morning, led us to expeefc 
division and confusion froni the ce^rflicting claims of ihe 
parties. A large concourse was present ; happily, how- 
ever, the party known as the New School, had taken then* 
measures with so much wisdom, and carried them througta 
with so much moderation, promptness and confidence, that 
the other party were taken by surprise and allowed them 
to go on and elect their officers and complete the organ i2u -• 
tion of the Assembly with entire unanimity. We lean* 
that the course pursued by the Trustees of the SevenUi 
Presbyterian Church rendered another place of meeting 
necessary ; and the Assembly adjourned to meet In the 
First Presbyterian Churchy where its sessions will hereaf- 
ter be held. Perhaps it would have been better if the 
audience had withheld their app-lause when the work was 
clone. We are also informed that the Old School party 
organized after the others had left the house. The party 
known as the New School did not adopt this course until 
it was rendered certain that their brethren were fully de- 
termined to carry out the aggressive measures of the hist 
Assembly, by which five hundred ministers and sixty 
thousand church: members were illegally, and= without triaU 
declared to oe no longer connected with* the Presbyteruui 
church. The aggrieved party have now rendered thou* 
churches secure.," 

An examination, however, of the testimony before live 
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in the Church Case, will 
prove more satisfactory than any newspaper accounts. 

In the trial, the Reformers had thirty witnesses. The 
greater portion of these testified that the tumult was charge- 
able upon the other party. It will be borne in mind, \h it 
all these witnesses, except one or two, were of the Reform 
party— some of them the leaders of the party, anl the 
very persons concerned in the transactions which were 
undergoing a legal investigation, viz.: Messrs Breckinridge, 
Plumer, the Moderator, the Clerk, &c. And some of the 
witnesses were, salaried officers, who made their bread by 



160 



sowing their party, viz. : Drs. Miller, Elliot, Messrs. Mc- 
FarJan, Lowrie, &c. It is not to be wondered at, that these 
gentlemen would consider every thing very disorderly that 
would be attempted by the Constitutional party to stay the 
usurpations and disorders of the so called reform. 

The testimony of Professor McLean, (an Old Sohool 
man) a member of the Assembly of 1838, and a witness 
for the Reformers, was as &ir as could have been expect- 
ed. He said: " That there had been as little disturbance 
by the members of the Mew School party, as had been 
possible, in that state of things." «' 1 thought that the 
tumult could not be charged on them, though they were 
the occasion of it" — " I thought the proceedings disorder- 
ly, of course ; I have never thought otherwise." — "To- 
ward the conclusion of the scene, there was clapping and 
some hissing. 1 did not know any of the individuals who 
clapped or hissed, but supposed the clapping was in appro- 
bation, and the hissing in disapprobation*" — " 1 saw no 
clipping or hissing from any member of the Assembly." — 
" The voices of the New School in voting were altogether 
above the pitch necessary to be heard." 

Counsel for the Rew School asked— *• Was it not neces- 
sary to speak loud in order to be heard ?" 

Witness. — "It was a perfect scene of confusion. I 
suppose it was necessary to speak loud in proportion to 
the noise in order to be heard. The voice naturally rises 
in loudness with excitement." 

Counsel. — " Is it not more probable that the opponents 
of the New School men wou'd make a noise to interrupt 
them, than that they should interrupt themselves ?" 

Witness. — " As an abstract proposition it may be so." 
See McElroy's Report, pp. 240,241. 

Mr. Norms, an Episcopalian, was, with not more than 
one exception, the only witness for the Old School, who 
was not an Old School Presbyterian. He did not fix the 
••on fusion upon the New School. The most that he said 
about the noise was in these words : " I saw Mr. Cleave- 
land rise. lie held a paper in his hand, and appeared as 
if he was reading from the paper. He read in a very loud 
voice. I J is voice was very loud, clear and distinct. I 
could hear every thing which he read, but do not now re- 
xnembcr what it was. When he finished reading the pa- 



m 

per, as 1 presumed,, he nominated Dr. Beman to act as 
chairman. I heard a very load affirmative, 1 should think 
from the galleries, as well as the lower part of the house.' 7 
See MeElroy's Report, page 239. . 

Rev. Mr. Boardman r an Old School witness, said : " The 
Moderator called him [Mr. Cleaveland] to order, and rapped 
with his hammer repeatedly, and there were cries of order 
from a number of the members around me, who used va- 
rious expressions; some cried * shame, shame? and I heard 
one or two gentlemen say t 4 Let him go on.' At this 
time some rose on their feet, and there were some standing 
on the seats, which prevented me from seeing Mr. Cleave- 
land." See MeElroy's Report, p. 216. 

The reader will see how this contrasts with the ac- 
counts that went out at the time through the papers of the 
Old School to their readers : '" Except the declaration of 
the Moderator that they were out of 'order, which was 
mildly and decorously announced, there was not an act or 
a word by any member of our house." 

Dr. Miller, of Princeton, was a witness for the Reform- 
ers. He said t "It was indeed a scene of great excite- 
ment, and I was surprised to find myself, though not a 
Commissioner, unconsciously waving my hand and ex- 
pressing a wish for the restoration of order." See MeEl- 
roy's Report, p. 312. 

It was to be sure a scene of excitement. And if Div 
Miller, whose character and deportment was sanctifird by 
years and religion, was found, though not a member, -wa- 
ving his hand and crying order, what was to be expected 
of men whose career ha& been marked by rashness an : . 
violence ? 

But some of the testimony on the other side must be ex- 
hibited. Mr. Gemmili was a witness for the Constitution < 
alist* 1 , and not a member of any church.. Fie said : " 1 at- 
tended the church in Ranstead Court on the day of the 
organization of the Assembly of 1838. I was leaning on 
a-pew, near the South West door, just under the gallery, 
not far from the Moderator. I saw Mr. Cleaveland rise, 
but did not hear much of what he said, because of the 
noise around me* In the neighborhood where I was, there 
was a great deal of scraping with the feet, stamping am; 
©tiier unseemly noises. 1 saw a great number of the Old 
14* 



\C2r 

'school members around me. I saw none other in tKat 
pew or in the vicinity where I was." " Some of them 
scraped with their feet and stamped on the floor, and there 
was considerable other noise in that neighborhood. This 
was while Mr. Cleavetand was speaking or reading. His 
face was, at first, towards the Moderator, that is, when he 
fust commenced. I spoke to some of the gentlemen 
around me, and asked what was the necessity of making 
so much noise. J knew some of them to be ministers, 
and said to them, that I thought that was pretty conduct 
for clergymen, and asked them if they had not better heaiv 
what the gentleman who was reading had to stay;* 1 — " h 
am not a member of any church, and felt that it was rath* 
e'r assuming for me to rebuke them, but I thought their 
conduct justified me, and 1 wanted to hear." — "There was 
a tumult through the house. 1 cannot say that it was 
confined to the Old School party, but I understood that 
those near me were the Old School. They generally act- 
ed with the Old School party."— « 1 should not call it a 
riot. There was scraping and coughing. 1 was twenty 
or thirty feet fiom Mr. Cleaveland, and there did not ap- 
pear to be as much noise near him as about where 1 was," 
See McElroy's Report, pp. 246, 247. 

Mr. Elms, a Congregationalist,. was a witness for the 
Constitutional party. He said : «' I stood near the Moder- 
ator. Dr. Miller was between Dr. Elliot and me. Dr. 
Elliot hammered and called to order, and Dr. Miller tried 
to hush the noise. He put his hand up as though to stop 
the tumult, and used some expression like ' Let them go 
through.' Dr. Miller, 1 think, stood up at this moment. 
He had before been sitting. This was about the time Mr. 
Cleaveland was endeavoring to read his paper. The tu- 
mult was the calling to order, very loudly, in the neigh- 
borhood of the Moderator. All the noise pretty much that 
I heard was in that part of the house." — " The reason 
why 1 could not hear all distinctly, was, that there were 
calls to eider. The Moderator called to order very loudly, 
and thumped with his hammer; and others around him 
calhd order loudly. There was a good deal of stir and, 
bustle. This was what I meant, when I spoke of tumult." 
See McElroy's Report, 251. 

In justice to the Hon. Mr. Lowrie, it ought to be stated*, 



163 

that in his neighborhood, he heard " no legislative cough- 
ing." And in reference to many of the Reform witnesses,- 
it may be conjectured that they were in the midst of so 
much noise, from calling to order, rapping the hammer, 
cries of ' shame, shame* i let them go on,' ' legislative 
coughing, ? &.c that they were poorly qualified to say upon-, 
whom the tumult was chargeable. 

Be the facts as they may, it is difficult for an unbiassed 
mind to perceive what object the Constitutional party could 
have in view in raising a tumult to defeat their own organ- 
ization. But so the Reformers would have it. They call- 
ed it " a riot." And those who aided in the organization? 
of the Assembly they called "n'tftm." So at least, said! 
the Editor of the Western Presbyterian Herald, 



( 164) 



CHAPTER XXL 



THE POLICY OF THE NEW BASIS ASSEMBLY. 



Though the division of the General Assembly was ef- 
fected at its meeting in May, 1838, yet the division gen- 
erally throughout the churches was somewhat gradual. 
The Reformers, by the excision of nearly one fourth of 
the church, had made the impression upon the minds of 
many, who had no sympathy for their new measures, that 
they were the church, seeming to be the majority — such 
persons supposing that the majority, by whatever means 
secured, must be the church. 

By this policy of the reform party, it must be conceded, 
that when the Assembly divided, counting all who claim- 
ed seats, the Reformers had the majority. The reform 
estimate of the strength of the parties, after the division 
©f the Assembly, was briefly the following:. 

Whole number, claiming seats in the Assembly of 1838, - 282 

Whole number who acted with the Reformers, - - ]56 

Leaving for the Constitutional Assembly, including a few neutrals, 126 
(See Western Presbyterian Herald, June 14th, 1S38.) 

According to this estimate, the Reformers had fifteen 
more than half of the Assembly. 

But the strength of parties in the Assembly did not ex- 
hibit the strength of parties throughout the church. After 
the division of the Assembly, the Reformers claimed the 
Southern States almost entirely. They congratulated 
themselves that "six ministers 91 constituted the strength of 
the "Neio School" in the South. In this they suffered 
themselves to be deceived, as subsequent events have 
r>roved. 

After the division of the Assembly, the Synods, Presby- 



165 

teries and Churches had to take action on the -subject of" 
separation. This was not generally done till the next fall, 
and then not completely ;• for since that period several 
Presbyteries, and many churches have left the New Basis, 
and planted themselves again upon the constitution of the 
church. 

In noticing the policy of the Reformers, we must in jus* 
tire confine ourselves to their own documents and reports. 
Their correctness or incorrectness, as regards principles 
or matters of fwct+ is a subject of lawful investigation* 
And whether their principles are more in accordance with 
truth than their statements, the reader must judge. Jt can- 
not, however, escape the notice of any one, that much that 
was said in their papers and documents was for effect. 

Let the reader take up the Western Presbyterian Her* 
aid of the 14th of June, 1838, and he may have a speci- 
men of things reported for effect. There the Editor, who 
boasts as much nobleness and fairness as is common a- 
rnong his Reform brethren, sends out to his readers a re- 
port of seven things, which he, no doubt, was willing they 
should believe "for substance of doctrine," oi> '^xs a sys- 
tem : ,r 

1. "That Dr. Taylor, of New Haven, officiated and 
preached the action sermon" for the Constitutional As- 
sembly. 

2. "That Dr. Richards, of Auburn, one of the most ju- 
dicious divines connected with the secession, retired from 
their councils in disgust, very soon after the Constitutional 
Assembly was organized." 

3. "That Judge. Hall one of the most judicious laymen 
connected with the secession, did not hesitate to express 
the opinion that they were destroying their prcspects, by 
their imprudent and undignified proceedings." 

4. "That the brethren (in the Constitutional Assembly) 
were sometimes constrained to laugh outright at the ludi- 
crousness of their appearance." 

5. "That our brethren of the secession seriously contem- 
plated at one time superceding that tyro in theology, Ar- 
chibald Alexander, and filling the chair which he has so 
unworthily occupied in the Seminary at Princeton, with 
the venerable Albert Barnes." 

6. "That certain persons, sound Presbyterians to be 



T66 

sure, and very honorable men, have given reason tcfex* 
pect that they will adhere to the Presbyterian church, or 
depart to the Seceders, according as the civil courts shall 
adjudge the church property to the one or the other of 
these bodies. Verily, these conscientious lovers of truth 
and order, and contemners of filthy lucle, remind one of 
a toast said to have been offered some years ago,, on a pub- 
lic occasion hi Richmond, Va., by John Randolph — The 
venerable Thomas Ritchie, and his principles ; just seven 
—Jive loaves and two fishes" 

7. "That our seceding brethren intend to claim, not on- 
ly all the property held by the Trustees of the General 
Assembly, but all the property held by all the congrega- 
tions heretofore connected with the Presbyterian church ia 
the United States of America." 

Had the veracity of this Editor at this time been called 
in question, it is probable he would have substantiated the 
whole by certificates,, as in the case of Mr. Stiles' unsound- 
ness in the faith, and the certificate of Mr. Craig ! 

Though the Editor was willing that his readers should 
believe these things "for substance of doctrine," yet he 
was himself chargeable with an inconsistency never im- 
puted even to the "New School," viz.: wanting others to 
believe "for substance of doctrine" what he did not him- 
self believe. 

It should not, however,, be supposed,, that in these seven 
reports there was nothing true. About two-sevenths of 
the statements were true; especially what was said under 
the sixth item about "certain persons" of seven princi- 
pies— five loves and two fishes. These are the persons, no 
doubt, of whom this same Editor was speaking in the W. 
P. Herald, of July 21st, 1836, when he said: "There are 
always some ready to join the strongest party, just be* 
Gauge it is the strongest parly." What, therefore, was 
said on this point was true. Those who love to go with* 
the strongest party — men of screw principles, belong not 
to the Constitutional party. .And, indeed, after laboring 
from 1830 to J 837 to get the stronger party and the men . 
of seven principles, the Reformers ought not to complain 
at their success. 

Well, as the newspaper reports of the Reformers are 



107 

not to be relied on, the doings of other bodies must claim 
attention. 

When the Reformers, year after year, were in the mi- 
nority, and were laboring for division, they then talked 
about an amicable separation, and an amicable division of 
church property. But when they found themselves a ma- 
jority in the Assembly, and had formed a division by ex- 
cision and other unconstitutional measures, the} seemed 
to have greatly changed their opinions about amicable ad- 
justments. The attempt was early made by the Reform 
party to set up an exclusive claim to the name, privileges, 
rights and property of the church. They were unwilling 
the community should regard the Constitutional party as 
one division of the body, but as a faction of seceders, who 
had gone out from them, renouncing the name, the doc- 
trines, or any claim to a share of the property of the 
church. 

That this is a correct view of the reform policy, will ap- 
pear from a history of the times. Below are given some 
resolutions which were before the New Basis Assembly of 
1838. They were not acted on, it was said, because "the 
secession commenced their suits at law." But the EdW 
tor of the Presbyterian, in publishing them, says : "In the 
main, we believe they expressed the mind of the As* 
sembly." 

The first paper was offered by Dr. Phillips, and is as 
follows : 

^^Whereas, the Presbyterian church in the United States.* 
as now represented in the General Assembly of the same* 
have for years contended for the doctrines and order of 
the gospel, for the truth, purity, peace and spiritual pros- 
perity of the church, and not for earthly gain ; and where? 
as, a portion of what has heretofore been called the Pres- 
byterian church, have voluntarily gone out from us, and 
by their secession and separate organization, have for- 
feited in law, all their title to any of the property belong- 
ing to the Presbyterian church ; and whereas, the General 
Assembly have no desire to hold or use any funds, which 
^nay in equity belong to said secession, therefore, 

"Resolved, That a committee be appointed to ascertain 
what portion, if any, of the funds in the hands of the 
Trustees of the General Assembly, may be equitably 



168 

claimed by those who adhere to the secession, anJ report 
to the next General Assembly, and thus, if possible, se- 
cure an amicable adjustment of our pecuniary affairs." 

The other paper was offered by Mr. Breckinridge, and 
is as follows : See Cincinnati Journal, June 28rh, 1838. 

"The General Assembly of the Presbyterian church in 
the United States, both during its present sessions, and 
during those of last year, had distinctly and repeatedly 
expressed its perfect willingness to settle all the difficul- 
ties, and especially those of a pecuniary kind, which have 
arisen, or could arise, between those Synods which have 
been declared out of our connexion, and all who have se- 
ceded and united with them, on the one part, and the church 
itself on the other. 

This was indeed the earnest desire of the church ; as 
well because of the questions involved, turned finally on 
questions purely ecclesiastical, as because money questions 
were in our view wholly insignificant, compared with oth- 
ers which lay behind them. And as we construed the law 
of God, it seemed better, even to take wrong and suffer 
injustice in temporal affairs, than to be prompt to hale 
even nominal christians before the judge. But above all, 
we utterly repudiate all pretensions, from whatever quar- 
ter, to control the conscientious decisions of the Church 
of Christ, on matters of christian doctrine, order or disci- 
pline, by the civil tribunals. 

We are bound, and we hope prepared, to render to Cae- 
sar all things that are Csesar's, but we are also bound, and 
resolved, never to surrender to Caesar the things which 
are only God's. 

It is, therefore, with decided repropation, that this As- 
sembly has learned, not only that suits are threatened a- 
gainst its Board of Trustees, but that other suits have 
been actually commenced against the officers of this body, 
and several of its members, the object of which is, not on- 
ly to prevent the free action of our ecclesiastical courts, 
but to unchurch the church itself, by the action of civil 
power. 

Under the present state of these painful affairs, this As- 
semby deems it a solemn duty, to declare, and does here- 
by declare : 

J.. That it expects of its Board of Trustees the sams 



169 

loyalty to the church, and the same fidelity to its Divine 
Lord, that have marked their course in past times, and it 
hereby pledges to them its support, and that of the churches 
represented in it, in their lawful acts, in carrying out the 
decisions of the last and present Assemblies. 

2. That we solemnly in the name of God, whose we are, 
and whom we try to serve, and on behalf' of his Church, 
of which we are Ministers and Ruling Elders, and as com- 
missioners constituting its highest earthly court, do hereby 
protest against all attempts to subject the Church of Christ, 
in its purely ecclesiastical action, to the surveillance, or 
revision of the civil power. And as free American citi- 
zens* we renounce for ourselves and for our country, all 
pretence to any such ruinous power as it regards others. 

3. That the churches and minorities of churches in the 
bounds or under the care of either of- those Synods or 
Presbyteries, which were declared to be out of the eccle- 
siastical connexion of the Presbyterian Church in the Uni- 
ted States of America — or within its bounds, or under the 
care of any seceding Presbytery or Synod, which church- 
es or minorities are willing to adhere to the Presbyterian 
Church in manner and form repeatedly declared by this 
Assembly, all such churches and minorities are hereby 
advised, not only to take steps for their early union with 
our body, but also to protect themselves in the exercise of 
ecclesiastical rights, to secure their corporate property a- 
gainst the new sect, and the ruinous principles upon which 
their proceedings go." 

These papers, not acted on from policy, nevertheless, 
upon the testimony of the Editor of the Presbyterian, "in 
the main expressed the mind of the Assembly. " The one 
offered by Mr. Breckinridge is especially worthy of no- 
tice, as going to show the feelings of the party. 

The incorrectness of the statement, in the first sentence, 
about the Reform party's "perfect willingness to settle all 
the difficulties, and especially those of a pecuniary kind," 
will be noticed in its proper place. 

It will be seen from this paper that the Reformers were 
ready to rebel against the civil authority, should an at- 
tempt be made, as they had learned would be the case, to 
bring their conduct before a civil tribunal. See their bold 
declarations: "We utterly repudiate all pretensions, from 
15 



170 



whatever quarter, to control the free and conscientious 
decisions of the Church of Christ (the Reform party) on 
matters of christian doctrine, order or discipline, by the 
civil tribunals." "We solemnly, in the name of God, 
whose we are, and whom we try to serve, and on behalf 
of liis church, of which we are ministers and ruling el- 
ders, and as commissioners constituting its highest earth- 
ly court,do hereby protest against all attempts to subject 
the Church of Christ, in its purely ecclesiastical action, to 
the surveillance or revision of the civil power." They 
seemed to regard their "ecclesiastical action as belonging 
to God and not to Caesar." And then they take a bold 
stand against this expected interference, and make a bold 
declaration : "We are bound, and we hope prepared to 
render to Ccesar all things that are Csesar's, but we are also 
bound and resolved never to surrender to Ccesar the tilings 
which are only God's." 

The Reformers attempted to inculcate such sentiments 
among their people. The Editor of the "Watchman of 
the South," says: "No court in any of these States can 
ever be brought to review or reverse ecclesiastical decis- 
ions. "—"Its (the Assembly's) decisions can be reviewed 
or reversed by no other court on earth." These senti- 
ments were copied into the Western Presbyterian Herald, 
of June 28th, 1838. 

The doctrine set forth in Dr. Phillips' paper, is, that the 
reform party is the church, and that the constitutional par- 
ty had forfeited their claim to any thing belonging to the 
church. This is the language: "Whereas, a portion of 
what has heretofore been called tiie Presbyterian Church 
have voluntarily gone out from us, and by their secession 
and separate organization, have forfeited in law, all their 
title to any of the property belonging to the Presbyterian 
Church." 

It will be seen that the excision is called a voluntary go- 
ing: out ; and the division of the body, a secession. But 
that party had a strange way of naming things; the im- 
propriety of wnich is often as manifest as it would be for 
Reformers in a church to call themselves the Old School. 

But in Dr. Phillips' paper it was admitted that the Con- 
stitutional party had a title to property; hut as the Re- 
formers would have a separation, so now they must have 



m 

all the property; for says the paper, the Constitutionalists 
""have forfeited in law, all their title to any of the prop- 
erty belonging to the Presbyterian church. " 

This policy of claiming all the property, as appears from 
Mr* Breckinridge's paper, was to extend even to the ex- 
cinded Synods. In that paper, not only majorities of 
churches, but even minorities are "hereby advised, not only 
to take steps for their early union with our [reform] body, 
but also to protect themselves in the exercise of their eccle- 
siastical rights, to secure their corporate property against 
the new sect, and the ruinous principles upon which then' 
proceedings go." 

Here are surely some strange features in the policy of 
the New Basis sect. They will have division, and "toef- 
feet this separation," they cast out whole Synods and Pres- 
byteries and churches, and then advise "minorities," how- 
ever small, to seize upon the funds — "to secure their corpo- 
rate property against the new sect." Then they proclaim 
that their proceedings are "ecclesiastical" that they be- 
long to the church, and the church belongs to God, and to 
permit the civil courts to review their proceedings would be 
subjecting the church of Christ to the surveillance of the 
civil power; and then they resolve "never to surrender to 
Csesar the things that are only God's." 

It will here be seen in what a state of embarrassment the 
Constitutional party found themselves. When the divis- 
ion took place, all the chartered funds of the Assembly- 
were in the hands of the reform party, and they were 
advising their minorities of Synods, Presbyteries and 
churches to secure all the property. And when the con* 
stitutional party declared their intention to let the civil 
courts decide, whether one party might thus disfranchise 
another, the Reformers cried out, "Oh, you must not goto 
law — it will injure religion!" The injured party then 
said : "We differ about rights and property — who shall de- 
cide ?" The Reformers were ready to say, " We will de- 
cide — you are seceders— just go along about your busi- 
ness — you have forfeited all title to your property — yet, 
if you will go off right peaceably, we will give you, as a 
charity, what we can spare. The times, however, are 
hard — the Vicksburg Bank is broke, and you must not ex- 
pect much. Indeed, the Trustees of the General Assem- 



172 

bly only hold some three hundred thousand dollars — hard- 
ly worth dividing — and as you care hut little for the stuff, 
would it not show your great disinterestedness just to agree, 
not only that the funds of the Assembly, but all the Theo- 
logical Seminaries, parsonages, town losts, church edifi- 
ces, &c, of the whole body should belong to our party, 
indeed, you must submit to our terms, and to our decision ; 
for we do not intend that our proceedings shall be review- 
ed by the civil courts. Ecclesiastical proceedings are 
God ? s, and ive are resolved never to surrender to Cczear the 
things which are only God's." 

To these terms the other party were unwilling to submit. 
And whether such a policy as the Reformers attempted to 
carry out should have been submitted to by the other por- 
tion of the church, is a question that men may decide dif- 
ferently. 



( m ) 



CHAPTER XXII. 

TH3 GREAT REFORM ORDINANCE OF 1838. 



The most important measure of the New Basis Assem- 
bly of 1838, was the passage of the three great acts " for 
the general reform and pacification of the church." Omit- 
ting'the third, being of a local bearing, we present the 
first two : 

REPORT 

Of the Committee on the State of the church, as adopted 
May 30, 1838. 

" The Presbyterian church in the United States of 
America, finds itself, by the providence of God, in the 
course of new and unprecedented events, in a position of 
great difficulty, novelty, and importance. The church, 
led and supported by the God of Zion, has, within the 
last few years, commenced a great reform, which has be- 
come indispensable to its very existence, as organized on 
the principles of the doctrine and order of its own consti- 
tution. The General Assembly of 1837 carried forward 
this reform, in several measures of great and, momentous 
importance, for the details of which we refer to its records. 
The voice of the church, uttered in a multitude of forms, 
and especially by the commissioners to the present Gene- 
ral Assembly, is clearly and decisively in favor of con- 
summating the reform thus auspiciously commenced. But 
a portion of the ministers and ruling elders, sent to this 
Assembly, forgetting, or violating, as we apprehend, their 
duty to God and to the church, and choosing to depart from 
us, have, in connection with other persons not in the com- 
15* 



174 

reunion of our church, constituted a new ecclesiastical 
trganization, which they improperly and unjustly assume 
10 call the true General Assembly of the Presbyterian 
church in the United States of America. To meet the 
present crisis at once with the temper and spirit becoming 
our high vocation, and to persevere in it, and carry safely 
through it, the church committed in so great a degree to 
our guidance, in times of so much trial and disorder, the 
three following acts are now ordained and established : 

ACT I. 

Sec I. That in the present state of the church, all the 
Presbyteries in our connection ought to take order, and are 
hereby enjoined to take such order as is consistent with 
this Minute, for the general reform and pacification of 
the church, and they are directed so to do, some time be- 
tween the dissolution of the present General Assembly, 
and the fall meetingsof the Synods, either at stated or pro 
re nafa meetings of the Presbyteries, as shall seem most 
advisable to them respectively. And those Presbyteries, 
whose commissioners to this Assembly have united with 
others in the formation of another Assembly, in the pres- 
ence of this, and with tumult and violence in open con- 
tempt of it : or who have advised the formation of said 
body, or adhered to, or attended it, as members thereof, 
after its formation, renounced, or refused to recognise this 
true and only Genera] Assembly of the Presbyterian 
church in the United States of America, are hereby re- 
quired to take proper order in regard to their said com- 
missioners. 

Sec II. In case the majority of any Presbytery, whose 
commissioners have acted as aforesaid, shall take proper 
odor touching their conduct in the premise?, and are wil- 
ling, upon the basis of the Assemblies of 1837 and 1838, 
to adhere to the Presbyterian church in the United States — 
then, and in that case, the acts of. their said commission- 
ers* in advising, creating, or unitng with said session, or 
in refusing to attend on this Assembly, as the case may be, 
shall not prejudice the rights or interests, or affect the in- 
tegrity of said Presbytery, or its union with the Presbyte- 
nan church in the United States of America, as an inte- 
gral portion theicof. 



175 

Sec. III. In case the majority- of any Presbytery shall 
refuse, or neglect to take proper order in regard to its se- 
ceding commissioners, or shall approve their conduct, or 
adhere to the new sect they have created, or shall decline 
or fait to adhere to the Presbyterian church in the United 
States of America, upon the said basis of 1837 and 1838, 
tor the reform of the church — then, and in that case, the 
minority of said Presbytery shall be held and considered to 
be the true Presbytery : and shall continue the succession 
of the Presbytery by its name and style, and from the 
rendition of the erroneous and schismatical decision, which 
is the test in the case, be the Presbytery ; and if suffi- 
ciently numerous to perform presbyterial acts, shall go 
forward wiih all the proper acts aad functions of the Pres- 
bytery. 

Sec. IV. In case the minority of any Presbytery 
should be too small to constitute a Presbytery, and perfom 
presbyterial acts, said minority shall remain in its existing 
state until the next subsequent meeting of the Synod to 
which it properly belongs, which will then take order on 
the subject. Otherwise, there is a possibility that several 
Synods might be unable to constitute, if majorities of pari 
of their Presbyteries should adhere to the secession, and 
the minorities attach themselves to other Presbyteries or 
several unite into one, before the Synods meet. 

Sec. V. The principles of this act shall apply to 
churches, with their majorities and minorities — and to 
church sessions, as far as they are applicable. And the 
; Presbyteries are hereby required so to exercise their watch 
and care, that as far as possible, all the churches may be 
preserved, and where unhappily this cannot be done, then 
that the minorities in the sessions and churches shall be 
cared for, and dealt with on the general principles now 
laid down. 

The Assembly is fully sensible that in divided Presby- 
teries and churches, every thing depends, under God, upon 
the promptitude, firmness, wisdom and moderation of the 
friends of Christ, in this great crisis. In this conviction, 
the whole of that part of the subject which relates to 
churches and private christians, is especially commended 
to the christian zeal, prudence and fidelity of the Presby- 
teries and church sessions. In regard to the temporal in- 



176 

tcrests of the churches, and the difficulties which may 
arise on their account, the Assembly advise that, on the 
one hand, great liberality and generosity should mark the 
whole conduct of our people, and especially in cases where 
our majorities are very small : while on the other hand, it 
would advise, that providential advantages, and important 
rights, ought not, in any case, to be lightly thrown away. 

Sec. VI. It is enjoined on the Synods to take order on 
this subject — to see that the principles here laid down are 
duly enforced — to take care that the Presbyteries act as 
truth and duty require in the -premises — to make such 
needful modifications in the Presbyteries as their altered 
circumstances may require — and to promote by all proper 
means the speedy pacification of the churches, by deliver- 
ing and saving them from the leaven of heresy, disorder 
and schism, which having so long worked among them, is 
at length ready, by Cod's mercy, to be purged away. 

Sec VII. The Synods in all cases shall be considered 
lawfully constituted only when formed by or out of those 
Presbyteries recognised as true Presbyteries by this As- 
sembly, according to the true tenor and intent of this act. 

ACT II. 

Whereas, the act of the Assembly of June 5th, 1837, 
declaring the three Synods of Utica, Geneva, and Gene- 
see, to be out of the ecclesiastical connection of the Pres- 
byterian Church in the United States of America, made 
ample provision for the return into the bosom of the 
church of every minister and church, truly Presbyterian 
in doctrine and order, as well within the bounds of the 
three aforesaid Synods, as within those of the Synod of 
the Western Reserve : 

And whereas, it is represented to this Assembly, that 
in addition to those who have embraced this invitation and 
provision of the aforesaid act, there are others who have 
held bick, and are still waiting on the developments of 
Providence : 

And whereas, it was never the intention of the General 
Assembly to cause any sound Presbyterian to be perma- 
nently separated from our connection, hut it is, and always 
was the desire of the church, that all who really embrace 



177 

our doctrine, love our order, and are willing to conform to 
our discipline, should unite themselves with us : 

And whereas, moreover, the General Assembly has no 
idea of narrowing, but would rather expand its geogra- 
phical limits, so as to unite in bonds of the most intimate 
fellowship every portion of our beloved country, and every 
evangelical christian like minded wilh ourselves : it is 
therefore, resolved by the General Assembly of the Pres- 
byterian Church in the United States of America, thai it 
be recommended — 

1. That those ministers and churches, living within the 
geographical limits of the Synods of Western Reserve, 
Geneva, Utica, and Genesee, who are willing to adhere to 
the Presbyterian Church in the United States, on the ba- 
sis of the acts of the Assemblies of 1837 and 1888, for 
th& general reform of the church, take steps for the imme- 
diate organization of as many Presbyteries as there are 
ministers and churches, such as are above described, suffi- 
ciently numerous to constitute, so that the whole number 
of Presbyteries thus formed, shall not exceed one Presby- 
tery for each of the aforesaid Synods; and so that the 
territory of the Western Reserve shall in no case be added 
to that in Western New York — and in case only two Pres- 
byteries can be constituted on the ground occupied by the 
three Synods of Utica, Geneva, and Genesee-— then that 
whole territory shall be divided between them. And in 
case but one Presbytery can be constituted, then the whole 
territory shall attach to it. In regard to the Western Re- 
serve, it is desired that a single Presbytery be formed as 
soon as convenient, to embrace the whole of that ground, 

2» The ministers and churches intended by this act, 
will hold such mutual correspondence as they shall deem 
needful, either by general meeting or otherwise ; and then 
meet, at such convenient time and place, as may be agreed 
on by those who are to be embraced in the same Presby- 
tery, and then and there constitute themselves in a regular, 
orderly, and christian manner, into a Presbytery under the 
care of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church 
in the United States of America. 

3. If as many as three Presbyteries can be convenient- 
ly formed in Western New York, it will be orderly for 
them, as soon as possible thereafter, to unite and consti- 



178 

tute themselves into a Synod, upon the principles indica- 
ted in this Act ; and such Synod, if formed, shall cover 
the entire territory heretofore occupied by the three Synods 
of Utica, Geneva, and Genesee. But in case only one or 
two Presbyteries can be formed, then application shall be 
made by it, or them, for admission under the care and in- 
to the bosom of such Synod, now in our connection, as 
shall be most convenient and natural. And the Presby- 
tery on the Western Reserve, if one should be formed, 
will adopt the same line of conduct. And any Synod, to 
which application may be thus made by any Presbytery, 
shall take immediate order to accomplish the ends of this 
act. And it is considered, that any Presbytery or Synod, 
formed in pursuance of these directions, shall have full 
power to perform all Presbyterial or Sy nodical acts, agree- 
ably to the Constitution of the Church." 

The reader ought to notice particularly a few items in 
this document, which is to be considered as a part of the 
foundation upon which the New Basis Assembly rests. 

They found themselves " in a position of great diffi- 
culty ', novelty and importance" — in the midst of " a great 
reform." They say : " The General Assembly of 1837 
carried forward this reform " in the excinding acts, and 
that now T the voice of the church H is clearly and decisive- 
ly in favor of consummating the reform thus auspiciously 
commenced. M 

Any one, however, must notice the absurd and incon- 
sistent statements made by the New Btsis Assembly in 
their " position of great difficulty and novelty." Here, 
in the Reform Ordinance, they would seem to regret the 
division of the church, and lay great guilt at the door 
of the other party for " forgetting, or violating, as we 
apprehend, their duty to God and the church, and choosing 
to depart from us.' 1 Now, can any one believe they wore 
in earnest in this regret, or that they were sorry the " New 
School'' had separated from them ? No. This was an 
attempt to impute their own guilt, in " fogetting, or viola- 
ting their duty to God and the church" to the innocent. 

But that they felt no regret, is evident from what they 
say in the latter part of the sixth section of the first Act. 
They there enjoin it upon Synods to promote the interests 
of their churches " by delivering and saving them from 



179 

the leaven of heresy, disorder and schism, which having 
so long worked among them, is at length ready, by God's 
mercy, to be purged away/' Could they regret that a 
thing should be done, which, "by GocVs msrg," was ready 
to purge away the heresy, disorder and schism which had 
so long worked among them VI The Reformers think the 
separation wrong ? They regret it ? No. They labored 
for it for years. In the Pastoral Letter of the same As- 
sembly, their language is, " Bejoicing as we do, that this 
separation is thus far effected. " 

Nor do they, in their Pastoral Letter, seem to charge 
the Constitutional party with " violating their duty to God 
and his church" in separating from them. On this point 
they say : " If the minority cannot in conscience submit 
to the measures or doctrines of the majority, it is their 
%ight and duty to separate." Again they say : " The 
church is now fairly divided into two separate and inde- 
pendent denominations." Did they complain of this sepa- 
ration 1 No. They say: " We only complain as to the 
manner in which it was effected." 

The third section of the first Act was regarded as the 
most odious portion -of the document. It was offensive to 
many who were inclined to adhere to the New Basis As- 
sembly. Adherence was required " upon the said basis 
of 1837 and 1838, for the reform of the church" And 
this adherence upon this a basis" was to be "the test in the 
case." 

This ordinance was to apply even to churches as well 
as to Synods and Presbyteries. In section five they say : 
M The principles of this act shall apply to churches with 
their majorities and minorities." 

The Constitutional party argued, that this was a " new 
basis" and a "new test." And that such an ordinance. 
having the nature of "regulations," or "constitutional 
rules," was in the face of Presbyterianism and the con- 
stitution of the church, and especially, because it had not 
been transmitted to the Presbyteries for their approval. 
Indeed, it was a new measure, to say the least of it. The 
ministers and elders and members said they had joined the 
Presbyterian church upon the basis of the Confession of 
Faith and Book of Discipline. The Constitutional party 
claimed to be upon that basis, and insisted that the other 



180 

party, by planting themselves upon " the Basis of 1837 
and "1838," had left the old basis. 

What the party meant by the act is uncertain. Some 
supposed they required approval of the reform measures 
of 1837 and 1838. This, to be sure, was a very natural 
conclusion. Upon what basis does a man join any socie- 
ty ? Upon the basis of its constitution. Upon what ba- 
sis does a man belong to a church ? Upon the basis of 
her constitution, and because he approves of her faith and 
discipline. Upon what basis does the Episcopalian adhere 
to his church 1 Or the Methodist to his ? Or the Pres- 
byterian to his ? Surely upon the basis of the Confession 
of Faith and Book of Discipline. And why upon this 
basis ? Because he approves it. 

Taking this common sense view of the subject, the As- 
sembly required adherence upon this new basis, evidently 
expecting that those who approved "the basis" would 
stand on it, by coming up to 6f the test in the case ," and 
thai those who did not approve would not adhere. 

But it was soon ascertained by the party, that if the 
approval of the reform measures were required, it would 
rapidly thin their ranks; for it may be confidently assert* 
ed that only a small portion of those who went with the 
Reformers, approve the New Basis. Approval, therefore, 
was not generally demanded by those Synods and Presby- 
teries which took action on the subject. 

The history of those times shows that the reform ordi- 
nances were not every where understood alike. On the 
subject of approval, the Princeton Repertory says . " We 
regret the use of the language employed, because it is 
* ambiguous.' On the supposition that the act required 
approval, they say ; *' We readily admit that if this inter- 
pretation be correct, the act complained of would be un- 
constitutional and tyrannical. 

It is however true, in some cases, approval was de- 
manded, and adherence upon the new basis was made "the 
test" of Presbyterianism. The majority of the Presby- 
tery of Erie, belonging to the Synod of Pittsburgh, were 
informed by the Synod that there wou Id be, no difficulty 
in their case, if they would now drcia re their adherence 
on the basis of 1^37 and 1838.'' The Presbytery an- 
swered : " We are willing to adhere to the Synod of 






181 

Pittsburgh and the General Assembly by which it is gov- 
erned, without having ourselves bound by any additional 
pledge whatever." Whereupon, Synod '* Resolved, that 
they do not consider said claimants as having complied 
with the requirements of Synod." 

In this case, the majority of the Presbytery was cut off. 
Why 1 Because they were unwilling to adhere on the 
basis of the Confession of Faith and Book of Discipline 1 
No. But because they could not approve the new test, 
and were unwilling to adhere upon the new basis. 

The Synod of Pittsburgh, in their Pastoral Letter of 
1838, thus interpret the great ordinance : " By the pro- 
vision of that act, the Assembly says, if a majority of a 
Presbytery approve and adhere to us, we recognise you 
as a Presbytery in our connection, &c. If you do not 
approve and adhere, we compel you not, but leave you to 
act as your best judgment dictates, if only a mino: ity 
approve and adhere, that minority we do not disown, but if 
sufficient in number, we recognise you as a Presbytery." 
See Manifesto, p. 16. 

On the 5th of September, 1838, the Presbytery of Vin- 
cennes enjoined it upon the church session of Evansville, 
to take prompt measures in reference to their elder, who 
had been bold enough to vote, and even protest against the 
acts of the General Assembly ; declaring, at the gams 
time, that those only should thereafter constitute said 
church, who shall " approve of the acts of the Assembly." 

At the same time, the above named Presbytery withheld 
from the Rev. Mr. Morrison liberty to preach within their 
bounds, " because he refused to give U3 any acknowledg- 
ment of his approval of those operations of the Assembly 
for the reform of the church," See Manifesto, p. 15 

On the 4th of December, 1838, the following measure 
was proposed at a meeting of Charleston Union Presby- 
tery : 

" Resolved, That the roll be now called, and each mem- 
ber, without discussion, do declare whether he can ap- 
prove the reform measures of the General Assembly of 
1837 ; and that those /ho answer in the affirmative, ac? 
cording to the provision of the last General Assembly, do 
constitute the Presbytery of Charleston Union, in connec- 
tion with the Presbyterian church." The moderator re. 
16 



182 



fusing to put the question, a small minority, in obedience, 
as they say, 4i to an injunction of the Supreme Judicatory 
of our church," declared themselves the Charleston Union 
Presbytery, to the excision of the majority. And this said 
small minority is to this day recognised as the Presbytery 
by the Reform Synod and New Basis Assembly. See 
Manifesto, p- 15. 

Il was indeed urged by the Constitutional party, that 
the reform ordinance shouldered aside entirely the Confes- 
sion of Faith. The New Basis party had asserted that 
they were contending alone for the truth and order of the 
church. Ill the first Act of this ordinance, they speak of 
the ' ; heresy and disorder" of the churches. And it might 
have been supposed that they would have proposed a more 
rigid subscription to the Confession of Faith, or ordained 
a closer examination on theology. But this was not done. 
And when, according to their Pastoral Letter: *' the 
church is now fairly divided into two separate and inde- 
pendent denominations," upon what basis do the Reform- 
ers require adherence to their new denomination ? Was 
it upon the basis of the Confession of Faith ? Not one 
word of this. The Confession is shouldered aside, and 
a n-ew foundation is laid in th(s great ordinance. 

Suppose some of those Synods or Presbyteries in which 
Ihe ik heresy and disorder" existed, had been called up. 
Were doctrinal tests to be presented ? Not one word of 
it. And no matter how high " the leaven of heresy and 
disorder" had worked, they were to be acknowledged as 
sound presbyterians, according to the great ordinance, 
provided they would adhere upon the New Basis. The 
object, therefore, judging from " the test in the case" was 
not to secure men who loved the truth, but who would an- 
swer the purposes cf the party. 

In this respect the Constitutional party seemed to be the 
most consistent. They required adherence upon the basis 
of the Confession of Faith, while the Reformers required 
adherence upon " the basis of 1837 and 1838." Now 
which of those " two separate and independent denomina* 
tions" has the best claim to the name of Old School is 
left for others to decide. 



i 183 ) 



CHAPTER XX'III. 



UNSUCCESSFUL EFFORTS FOR AN AMICABLE ADJUST- 
MENT. 



After the church was "divided into two separate and in- 
dependent denominations," each party claimed to be the 
Presbyterian church. The New Basis denomination wish- 
ed to chim exclusively the name, privileges and funds of 
the church. The Constitutional party were unwilling to 
admit this claim. Such a surrender would have been a 
virtual acknowledgment, that they had seceded from the 
church of their tenderest regard — an abandonment of ec- 
clesiastical rights — a relinquishment of funds and proper- 
ty bequeathed to ihem by their fathers for sacred purpo- 
ses. By such a course they would not only have forfeit- 
ed their share in. the chartered funds of the General As- 
sembly, but their theological seminaries, colleges, acade- 
mies, parsonages, town lots, church edifices, and even the 
grave yards, where sleep their fathers and mothers, hus- 
bands and wives, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters. 

In such a state of things, common sense and common 
honesty would say, the parties ought amicably to have 
adjusted their differences, and to have divided the property, 
so that there should have been no law suits between the 
parties in the Assembly, or in Synods, Presbyteries or 
churches. But this was not done. The Constitutional 
party were obliged either to yield unconditionally to those 
who had attempted to oppress them, or "appeal to Caesar/' 
They preferred the latter, for which they have been great- 
ly censured by their former brethren. 

Indeed, in no part of the controversy, has the conduct 
of the Constitutional party been more fearfully misrepre- 
sented than in this. The New Basis party have tried to 



184 

make the impression, that they were always ready for a 
friendly arrangement. In their Pastoral Letter of 1838, 
they intimate that the Constitutional party were averse to 
an amicable arrangement, and then say, "had this course 
been adopted, we were willing to concur in any reasona- 
ble plan for the adjustment of any unsettled claims which 
have appertained to the case.'' 

Greater misrepresentations than this were made in some 
of the New Basis newspapers in that day. The Editor of 
the Western Presbyterian Herald, of June 6th, 1839, 
speaking of his party in 1837 and 1838, says : "The Old 
School, though a decided majority [of six in two hundred 
and fifty] then offered the other party every farthing of 
property which they claimed. 'In 1838, they were still 
willing and desirous to have an amicable adjustment of all 
property claims ; but nothing would satisfy the New School 
but an unchristian appeal to the civil courts." 

It is necessary, therefore, that the history and charac- 
ter of those efforts for "an amicable adjustment" should be 
fairly examined, that the impartial may see who "were 
willing and desirous to have an amicable adjustment," and 
who were to blame for the 'unchristian appeal to the civil 
courts." 

In the Assembly of 1837, it was well understood by both 
parties, that the Reformers were determined on the divis- 
ion of the church. Such an event the other party had 
ever tried to avert, when in the majority, as well as when 
in the minority. But when they perceived that it could 
not be avoided, th«y consented to it. The proposition, 
however., for the division, came from the Reform party. 
A commiitee of ten on the state of the church was ap- 
pointed — live from each party. 

The papers which passed between the two parties of the 
committee are too lengthy to insert here. They can be 
seen in the newspapers of that day and in the reports of 
the chuich case. From the reports of the committee to 
the Assembly, it will be seen, that they agreed upon all im- 
portant points, except such as were connected immediate- 
ly or remotely with the charter. 

They agreed that the Assembly should be divided into 
two bodies — the Reform Assembly to be called the General 
Assembly of the Presbyterian church in the United States 



1 185 

of America, and the Constitutional Assembly, the General 
Assembly of the American Presbyterian church. 

They agreed also in reference to the funds, institutions, 
boards, records, <fcc. But they differed on this point. The 
Reformers wanted the division consummated on the spot. 
The other party said they had no authority from the con- 
stitution of the church, or from the Presbyteries which 
they represented, to dismember the body. But they were 
willing to unite with the Reformers in recommending the 
proposed plan of division to the Presbyteries, that they 
might, the next year, give their sanction, and ratify what 
they were proposing. Indeed, according to the constitu- 
tion of the church, this committee of ten, or even the 
whole Assembly had no more right to divide the church 
than the committee of ways and means in Congress has to 
divide the Union. And such an attempt would have been, 
in ecclesiastical or civil law, null and void, in any State, 
without the consent of the Presbyteries. 

And not only did the Reformers want the plan to go into 
effect then, but they insisted on holding on to the charier, 
which would in any contingency make them secure, but 
would leave their brethren without any security except 
good promises. 

We have only room for the reports of the committee, 
The papers alluded to, which was passed between the two 
portions of the committee, may be seen in McElroy -s 
Report, pp. 51 — 54. 

REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE MAJORITY. 

"The committee of the majority, from the united com- 
mittee on the state of the church, beg leave to report : 

That having been unable to agree with the minority's 
committee on any plan for the immediate and voluntary 
separation of the New and Old School parties in the Pres- 
byterian church, they lay before the General Assembly 
the papers which passed between the committees, anil 
which contain alt the important proceedings of both bodies. 

The papers are marked one to five of the majority and 
one to four of the minority. A careful examination of 
them will show that the two committees were agreed in 
the following matters, namely : 
16* 



ISG 

1. The propriety of a voluntary separation of the par- 
lies in our church ; and their separate organization. 

2. As to the corpora (e funds, the names to be held by 
each denomination, the records of the church, and it* 
boards and institutions. 

It will further appear, that the committee were entirely 
unable to agree on the following points, namely : 

1. As to the propriety of entering at once, by the As- 
sembly, upon the division, or the sending down of the ques- 
tion to the Presbyteries. 

2. As to the power of the Assembly to take effectual 
initiative steps, as proposed by the majority ; or the neces- 
ity of obtaining a change in the constitution of she church* 

3. As to the breaking up of the succession of the Gen- 
eral Assembly, so that neither of the new Assemblies pro- 
posed, to be considered this proper body continued, or that 
lire body which should retain the name and institutions 
of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church in 
the United States of America, should be held in fact and 
!aw,tohethe true successors of tkisbsdy. While the 
committee of the majority were perfectly disposed to do 
nil that the utmost liberality could demand, and to use in 
all cases such expressions as should be wholly unexcep- 
tionable ; yet it appears to us indispensable to take our 
final stand on these grounds. 

For, fi^M t we are convinced that if any thing tending 
towards a voluntary separation is done, it is absolutely 
necessary to do it effectually and at once. 

Secondly, As neither party profescs any desire to alter 
any; constitutional rule whatever, it seems to us not only 
needless, but absurd, to send down an overture to the Pres- 
byteries on tins subject. We believe, moreover , that full 
power exists in the Assembly, either by consent of parties, 
or in the way of discipline, to settle tins and all such 
ctisee ; and that its speedy settlement is greatly to be de- 

r< d. 

Thirdly* fit regard to the succession of the General 
Assembly, this committee could not, in present circum- 
stances, consent to any thing that should even imply the 
final dissolution of the Presbyterian church, as now organ- 
iz' d in this country ; which idea, it will be observed, is at 
the basis of the plan of the minority ; insomuch that even 



IS? 

the body retaining the name and institutions should not be 
considered the successor of this body. 

Finally. It will be observed from our fifth paper, as 
compared with the fourth paper of the minority's commit- 
tee, that the final shape which their proposal assumed, was 
such, that it was impossible for the majority of the house 
to carry out its views and wishes, let the vote be as it might. 
For it the house should vote for the plan of the committee 
of the majority, the other committee would not consider 
itself or its friends bound thereby : and voluntcDy division 
would therefore be impossible, in that case. But if the 
house should vote for the minority's plan, then — the fore- 
going insuperable objections to that plan being supposed 
to be surmounted — still the whole case would be put off, 
perhaps indefinitely." See McElroy's Report, p. 49. 

-REICRT OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE MINORITY. 

"The subscribers, appointed members of the committee 
of ten on the state of the church, respectfully ask leave to 
report, as follows : 

It being understood that one object of the appointment 
of said committee v^as to considder the expediency of a 
voluntary division of the Presbyterian church, and to de- 
vise a plan for the same, they, in connection with the other 
members of the committee, have had the subject under 
deliberation. 

The subseihers had believed that no such imperious ne- 
cessity for a division of the church existed, as some of 
their brethren supposed, and that the consequences of di- 
vision would be greatly to be deprecated. Such necessity, 
however, being urged by many of our brethren, we have 
been induced to yield to their wishes, and to admit the ex- 
pediency of a division, provided the same could be accom- 
plished in an amicable, equitable, and proper manner. 
We have accordingly submitted the following propositions 
to our brethren on the other part of the same committee, 
who at the same time submitted to us their proposition, 
which is annexed to this report. (Here read the proposi- 
tion marked Minority No. 1, and Majority No. 2.) 

Being informed by the other members of the committee, 
that they had concluded not to discuss in committee the 



188 

propositions which should be submitted, and that all pro- 
positions on both sides were to be in writing, and to be an- 
swered in writing, the following papers passed between the 
two parts of the committee. (Here read papers, No. 2, 
minority — 2, majority— 3, majority — 3, minority — 4, ma- 
jority — 4, minority— -5, majority.) 

From these papers it will be seen, that the only ques- 
tion of any importance upon which the committee differed, 
was that proposed to be submitted to the decision of the 
Assembly, as preliminary to any action upon the details 
of either plan. Therefore, believing that the members of 
this Assembly have neither a constitutional nor moral right 
to adopt a plan for a division of the church, in relation to 
which they are entirely uninstructed by the Presbyteries ; 
believing that the course proposed by their brethren of the 
committee to be entirely inefficacious, and calculated to in- 
troduce confusion and discord into the whole church, and 
instead of mitigating, to enhance the evils which it propo- 
ses to remove ; regarding the plan proposed by them- 
selves, with the modification thereof as before stated, 
as presenting in general the only safe, certain, and con- 
stitutional mode of division, the subscribers do respectfully 
submit the same to the Assembly for their adoption or re- 
jection." See; McElroy's Report, p. 50. 

From the report of the committee of the majority, it 
will be seen that they very significantly objected " to the 
breaking up of the succession of this General Assembly." 
From their report and the papers that they submitted to 
the other portion of the committee, it will also be seen, 
that their propositions in relation to " the succession" and 
the church property were stated in language well calcula- 
ted to deceive the unsuspecting. 

It will, however, be seen that the attempt at an amica- 
ble adjustment failed because they wanted every thing 
made sure to them and nothing secure to the others — 
claiming for themselves exclusively the succession of the 
Presbyterian church. 

The consequence of such a division to the Constitutionl 
party would have been to make them at once seceders from 
the church of their fathers — a church to whose constitu- 
tion and principles they were determined to adhere. And 



189 

by such a course they would have excluded themselves 
from all legal claim to the property of the church. 

But there were other considerations of weightier value 
with the Constitutional party than dollars and cents. In- 
deed had there been no other interests involved, it is be- 
lieved, they would have relinquished their just claim to 
their share of the property. But there were other inter- 
ests — their honesty, their consistency, their christian rep- 
utation, their zeal for the church, their usefulness. They 
could not consent, without a struggle, to be unjustly branded 
heretics or seceders from a church they were as ardently 
attached as those were who would exclude them. They 
were unwilling to be cut off and disfranchised, and then 
covered with such reproaches as " no Presbyterians" — 
"false and deceivers" — " enemies to the Presbyterian 
church" fyc. 

The reader, however, must judge which party was to 
blame for the failure in this attempt at an amicable ad- 
justment of conflicting claims. 

When the effort for an amicable separation failed, Mr. 
Breckinridge the same morning, according to his declara- 
tion in the committee of ten, offered a resolution to cut off 
the Synod of the Western Reserve. The work of excis- 
ion then progressed, until they cut off " a sufficient num- 
ber of Synods from the General Assembly to secure there- 
after, in that body, the preponderance of the Old School." 

The next attempt at an amicable adjustment was while 
the two parties were in Convention, before the meeting of 
the Assembly in 1838. 

On the 15th of May, 1838, the Constitutional conven- 
tion sent the following proposal to the Eeform conven- 
tion, viz.: 

" Resolved, That while we regard with deep sorrow the 
existing difficulties in our beloved church, we would fond- 
ly hope, that there are no insurmountable obstacles in the 
way of averting the calamities of a violent dismember- 
ment, and of securing such an organization as may avoid 
collisions, and secure the blessings of a perpetuated harmo- 
nious action. 

*■ Resolved, That we are ready to co-operate in any ef- 
forts for pacification* which are constitutional, and which 
shall recognise the regular standing and secure the rights 



190 

of the entire church ; including those portions which the 
acts of the last General Assembly were intended to ex- 
clude. 

" Resolved, That a committe of three be now appoint- 
ed, respectfully to communicate the foregoing resolutions 
to those commissioners, now in session in this city, who 
are at present inclined to sustain the acts of the last Gen- 
eral Assembly, and enquire whether they will open a 
friendly conference for the purpose of ascertaining if some 
constitutional terms of pacification may not be agreed 
upon." See Cincinnati Journal, 28th of June, 1838. 

To this communication the Reform Convention returned 
the following answer, viz.: 

<k The committee on the communication from the meet- 
ing of commissioners, now in session in the lecture room 
of the First Presbyterian Church, presented the following 
preamble and resolutions, which were adopted, viz.: 

" Whereas, the resolutions of the meeting, whilst they 
profess a readiness to, co-operate in any efforts for pacifi- 
cation, which are constitutional,' manifestly proceed upon 
the erroneous supposition, that the acts of the last Gener- 
al Assembly, declaring the four Synods of the Western Re- 
serve, Utica, Geneva, and Genesee, out of the ecclesiasti- 
cal connection of our church, were unconstitutional and 
invalid, and the convention cannot for a moment consent 
to consider them in this light ; therefore, 

" Resolved, unanimously, that the convention regard the 
said overture of the said meeting, however intended, as 
founded upon a basis which is wholly inadmissible, and as 
calculated only to disturb that peace of our church, which 
a calm and firm adherence to those constitutional, just and 
necessary acts of the last General Assembly, can alone, 
by the blessings of Divine Providence, establish and secure. 

" Resolved, That in the judgment of the convention, 
the resolution of the last General 1 Assembly, which pro- 
vides, in substance, " that all the churches and ministers 
within the said four Synods, which are strictly Presbyte- 
rian in doctrine and order, and wish to unite with us, may 
apply for admission into those Presbyteries belonging to 
our connection which are most convenient to their respec- 
tive locations; and that any such Presbytery as aforesaid, 
being strictly Presbyterian in doctrine and order, and now 



191 

in connection with any of the said Synods, as may desire 
to unite with us, are directed to make application, with a 
full statement of their case to the next General Assembly, 
which will take order therein, furnishes a fair and easy 
mode of proceeding, by which all such ministers, churches, 
and Presbyteries within the said Synods, as are really desi- 
rous to be recognized as in regular standing with us, and as 
proper parts of our entire church, may obtain their object 
without trouble and without delay." See Cincinnati Jour- 
nal, June 28th, 1838. 

The reader, by comparing these two communications, 
will be able to see which party was most desirous to have 
an amicable adjustment. The Reformers took umbrage at 
the word " constitutional." Hence they regarded the over- 
ture " as calculated only to disturb" the peace of the 
church. They seemed to think that their plan of excision 
and division and seizure of the property of the entire 
church, was the only way to peace. They would not al- 
low any overture for a friendly arrangement to disturb the 
peace of the church. The plain meaning of all was — our 
plans must not be disturbed ; and if you will just agree 
to let us cut off Synods enough to secure to us forever 
hereafter a majority, and to complete the reformation and 
division of the church thus " auspiciously begun," and 
secure the property to which your party has forfeited its 
title, then, by the blessings of Divine Providence, we will 
have peace ! ! 

The two parties had not yet separated, yet nearly all 
prospect of conciliation, or of an amicable division was 
foreclosed. 

But when the Assembly met and the parties had separa- 
ted, by the organization of two Assemblies, the Constitu- 
tionalists were still desirous for an amicable adjustment. 
Accordingly the Constitutional Assembly, on the 24th of 
May, 1838, passed the following resolution, viz.: 

" Resolved, That this body is willing to agree to any 
reasonable measures tending to an amicable adjustment of 
the difficulties existing in the Presbyteiian church, and 
will receive and respectfully consider any propositions 
which may be made for that purpose." See Cincinnati 
Journal, June 28th, 1838, 



192 

" Besides these overtures for peace, influential members 
of the Assembly held personal conference with the mem- 
bers of the Reform body, till it was ascertained that there 
was no hope of an amicable settlement of differences." See 
Pastoral Letter of the Constitutional Assembly of 1838. 

What then could the Constitutional party do ? One of 
two things they were obliged to do ; either submit uncon- 
ditionally to the Reformers — or " appeal to Csesar," to 
know if he would allow one portion of a church to dis- 
franchise the other. They chose the latter alternative ; 
and the Trustees of the Assembly instituted suit against 
the Trustees of the New Basis Assembly. 

But before the trial came on, the Constitutional party 
were still anxious for an amicable arrangement, as will 
appear from the following facts : 

" In the Assembly, wbich met in the First Church, May 
20th, 1839, Judge Darling, from the committee of twelve, 
appointed on the 21st of iMay, 1838, " to advise and direct 
in respect to any legal questions and pecuniary interests 
that might require attention during the ensuing year," re- 
ported that previous to the trial before Judge Rogers, at 
Nisi Prius, the committee were informed by one of then- 
counsel, that John R. Kane, Esq., one of the Trustees of 
the General Assembly, and who was of counsel for the 
respondents, had stated to him, that those he represented 
were disposed to adjust, amicably and equitably, all mat- 
ters in controversy in this cause, and had requested him to 
ascertain what terms the committee would propose, as a 
basis for an amicable division of the Presbyterian church, 
and the final adjustment of all the matters in dispute be- 
tween the Reformed and Constitutional General Assem- 
blies. Keeping in view the resolution of the General As- 
sembly of 1838, viz.: u That this body is willing to agree 
toany reasonable measures tending to an amicable adjust- 
ment of the difficulties in the Presbyterian church, and 
will receive and respectfully consider, any propositions 
made for that purpose"— they waived all exceptions which 
might have been taken to enter into negotiation with, or 
to making propositions to, an irresponsible individual, and 
promptly requested their counsel to furnish Mr. Kane with 
a copy of the following articles : 



193 



ARTICLES OF AGREEMENT PROPOSED. 

" In order to secure an amicable and equitable adjust 
ment of the difficulties existing in the Presbyterian church 
in the United States of America, it is hereby agreed by the 
respective parties, that the following shall be articles oa 
which a division shall be made and continued. 

Art. 1. The successors of the body which held its ses- 
sions in Ranstead Court, shall hereafter be known by the 
name and style of the General Assembly of the Presbyte- 
rian church in the United States of America. The suc- 
cessors of the body which held its sessions in the First 
Presbyterian church, shall hereafter be known by the 
name and style of " The General Assembly of the Ameri- 
can Presbyterian church. " 

Art. 2. Joint application shall be made by the parties 
to this agreement, to the Legislature of Pennsylvania, for 
a, charter to incorporate Trustees of each of the respec- 
tive bodies, securing to each the immunities and privileges 
now secured by the existing charter to the Trustees of the 
General Assembly of the- Presbyterian church in the 
United States of America ; subject nevertheless, to the 
limitations and articles herein agreed on ; and when so 
obtained, the existing charter shall be surrendered to the 
State. 

Art. 3. Churches, ministers, and members of churches, 
as well as Presbyteries, shall he at full liberty to decide 
to which of the said Assemblies they will be attached ; 
and in case the majority of legal voters of any congrega- 
tion shall prefer to be connected with any Presbytery con- 
nected with the Assembly to which their Presbytery is 
not attached, they shall certify the same to the stated clerk 
of the Presbytery, which they wish to leave, and their 
connection with said Presbytery shall henceforth cease. 

Art. 4. The Theological Seminary of Princeton, the 
Western Theological Seminary, the' Board of Foreign. 
Missions, the Board of Domestic Missions, the Board of 
Education with the funds appertaining to each, shall be 
the property and subject to the exclusive control of the 
body which, according to this agreement, shall be charter- 
ed under the title of ■ the General Assembly of the Pres- 
byterian church in the United Slates of America.' 
17 



194 

This agreement shall not be considered a secession, on 
the part of either body, from the Presbyterian church in 
the United States of America, but a voluntary and arnica 
b!e division of this church into two denominations, each 
retaining all the ecclesiatical and pecuniary rights of- the 
whole body, with the limitations and qualifications in the 
above articles specified." 

The only reply which the committee received to these 
propositions was, that they could not be accepted, but that 
the Old School party would agree that the members of the 
Constitutional General Assembly, and all who adhered to 
this General Assembly, should be at liberty to leave the 
Presbyterian church without molestation from them, and 
that they should not be called seceders. See McElroy's 
Report, pp. 6, 7. ^ 

From the documents already given, it will be seen that 
the Constitutional party made several overtures for an am- 
icable adjustment, and that all their overtures were prompt- 
ly rejected by the Reformers. 

On the other hand, nothing like an overture was made 
by the Reformers, except some resolutions which they 
adopted in 1839, after they were induced by the opinion of 
Judge Gibson to consider the property all their own. 

The principles of these resolutions are set forth in 
the third, viz.: 

'• The Trustees of the Assembly are hereby authorized 
and requested to do on the part of this Assembly, should 
occasion offer, whatever is lawful, competent, and equita- 
ble in the premises, conformable to the principles and in 
the manner heretofore laid down in the minutes of this 
Assembly for 1837 and 1838, so far as relates to the cor- 
porate property of the church, and any equities springing 
out of the same." x 

The phraseology of this resolution ought to be marked. 
The Trustees are authorized to do what is "lawful" fyc, 
" conformable lo the principles, and in the manner heretofore 
laid down in the minul.es of this Assembly for 1837 and 
1838." But what were " the principles" laid down in 1837 
and 1838 ? They were those : Minorities of Synods, 
Presbyteries and churches were to be considered the bodies, 
in crises where the majorities fail to adhere upon the basis 
1837 and 1838. 



195 

It is true they said in the Reform Ordinance of 1838 : 
14 In regard to the temporal interests of the churches and 
the difficulties which may arise on their account, the As- 
sembly advise that, on the one hand, great liberality and 
generosity should mark the whole conduct of our peo 
and especially in cases where our majorites in the church* 
es are very large, ot-our minorites very small : whiie on 
the other hand, it would advbe, that providential advan- 
tages, and important rights, ought not in any ease, to be 
lightly thrown away." 

What waa meant by "providential advantages and ini* 
porlant rights" is uncertain. The language is ambiguous 

The intelligent reader can now decide for himself which 
party was " willing and anxious to have an amicable ad* 
justment" and which party waste be blamed for the M un- 
christian appeal to the civil courts," 



( 1MB) 



CHAPTER XXIV. 



RESULTS OF LEGAL INVESTIGATION. 



As all the efforts of the Constitutional party for an ami- 
cable adjustment of difficulties were unsuccessful, no al- 
ternative was left but to bring suit against the Reformers, 
who had all the chartered funds of the General Assembly 
m their possession. 

The suit was instituted in the Supreme Court of Penn- 
sylvania, in July. 1838. 

The case was taken up in March, 1839, the Hon. Mil- 
ton C. Rogers presiding. The trial occupied twenty days. 

After the Judge had given his charge to the jury, they, 
after a short absence, returned and rendered a verdict for 
the Constitutional party. 

There are some points in the charge of Judge Rogers, 
which should be noticed. 

it had been urged by the Reformers that the Plan of 
Union of 1801 was unconstitutional; and upon this as- 
sumption they based the excinding acts. But here the 
Judge was against them. He says: "So far from believ- 
ing the Plan of Union to be unconstitutional, 1 concur 
fully with one of the counsel, that, confined within its le- 
gitimate limits, it is an agreement or regulation, which 
the General Assembly not oniy had power to make, but 
that it is one which is well calculated to promote the best 
interests of religion." 

The Judge asserts that if the Plan were unconstitu- 
tional, there is no evidence that the excinded Synods were 
formed under it. He says : "The compact, as has been 



197 

before observed, was intended for a different purpose, and 
imposed on the Presbyterian church no obligation to admit 
churches formed on the Plan, as members. It was a vol- 
untary act, and not the necessary result of the agreement ; 
nor does it appear that the Presbyteries were formed and 
incorporated with the church on any other terms or condi- 
tions than other Presbyteries, who were in regular course 
taken into the Presbyterian connection." 

It was the opinion of the Judge, that in the excluding 
process, "the substantial forms of justice" were not ob- 
served. He says : "But so far from this, the General As- 
sembly, in the plenitude of its power, has undertaken to 
exclude from all their rights and privileges twenty-eight 
Presbyteries, who are its constituents, without notice, and 
without even the form of trial. By the resolutions, the 
commissioners, who had acted as members of the General 
Assembly for two weeks, were at once deprived of their 
seats. Four Synods, twei)ty-eight Presbyteries, five hun- 
dred and nine ministers, live hundred and ninety-nine' 
churches, and siyAy thousand communicants, were at once 
disfranchised and deprived of their privileges in this 
church. This proceeding is not only contrary to the eter- 
nal principles of justice, the principles of the common 
law, but it is at variance with the constitution of the 
church." 

Nor would he admit that the excision was a legislative 
act. His language is : "This is not in the nature of a le- 
gislative, but it is a judicial proceeding to all intents and 
purposes. It is idle to deny that the Presbyteries within 
the infected districts, as they are called, were treated as 
enemies and offenders against the rules, regulations, and 
doctrines of the church." 

The Judge goes on to say, in reference to the plea, that 
the excision was legislative — 'But admitting this to be in 
the nature of a legislative proceeding, still it is void ; for 
I deny the right of any legislature to deprive an elector 
of his right to vote, either with or without trial. This is 
a power which can only be exercised by a judicial tribu- 
nal, who act under the sanction of an oath, who examine 
witnesses on oath, and who conform to all the rules of 
evidence established by the usages of law." 
17-* 



f I9> 

« 

After deciding that the Plan of Union was not unconstitu- 
tional, and that the excinding acts of 1837. "were unconsti- 
tutional, null and void" he proceeds to decide several im- 
poitant points in the proceedings of the Assembly of 1888. 

Lie decided 4, ihat the commissioners from the Presbyte- 
ries, within the Lounds of these Synods, had the same 
right to seats in the General Assembly as the members 
from the other Presbyteries within the jurisdiction of the 
Assembly.' 7 

It was the opinion of the Judge, that Dr. Elliot, the 
moderator, in declaring the appeal of Dr. Mason out of 
order, was chargeable with "a usurpation of authority.' 3 

it was also the opinion of the Judge "that the General 
Assembly has a right to depose their moderator upon suf- 
ficient cause/* 3 

And on the subject of Mr. Cleaveland's alleged, irregu- 
larity, in putting the question to the house for a new mod- 
erator, the Judge says: "It is the opinion of the Court, 
that a member, although not an officer, is entitled to put a 
question to the house in such circumstances." 

in reference to the objections often urged against the 1 
Want of some of the usual forms, the Judge says :• "That 
the fact that Mr. Cieaveland put' the question, instead of 
the moderator, t he cries of order when this was in pro- 
gress, the omission of some of the formula usually ob- 
served when there is no contest and no excitement, suvh : 
as standing in the aisle instead of taking the chair occu- 
pied by the moderator, not using the usual insignia of of- 
lice, pulling the question in an unusual place, and the short 
time consumed in the organization of the bouse, and three 
or more members standing at the same time, w 7 ill not vi- 
tiate the organization, if you should be of the opinion that 
this became necessary from the illegal and improper con- 
duct (A' the adverse party." 

•.fudge Rogers' charge to the jury contains, in addition 
to a clear and lucid exposition of constitutional and com- 
fftofl law, a concise an pretty accurate history of the whole 
controversy. It may be seoi in Mcelroy's Report of the 
Church Case, pp. 506, 5;i9. 

The result of the trial has already been stated. After 
a long and patient hearing, the verdict of an impartial? 
"piiry was for the Constitutional party* 



199 

The Old School had hitherto been very clamorous 
against Christians appealing to Caesar. Indeed, they show- 
ed a great unwillingness to have their acts reviewed by a 
civil tribunal, Messrs; Breckinridge, Plumer, &c. de- 
clared that they would not submit to such a review, be- 
cause it would be rendering to Caeser the things that are 
God's- But it has always been true that men, who are 
chargeable with wrong-doing, do not love the civil courts. 

When, however, the decision of the Court went against 
them, they soon changed their minds, and with great haste 
they themselves appealed to Csesa r. Their Counsel mov- 
ed the Court in Bank for an order for a new trial. The 
order was granted and the majority of the Court in grant- 
he order gave an opinion, through Chief Justice Gib- 
son, adverse to the decision under Judge Rogers. 

A few points in the opinion of Judge Gibson are worthy 
of notice. 

The Reformers had based their excision upon the un- 
constitutionality of the Plan of Union of 1801.' But 
Judge Gibson concurred in opinion with Judge Rogers that 
the Plan was constitutional. 

Judge Rogers in his charge has said that the excinded 
* were treated as enemies and offenders against the rules 
of the church, and that the act of excision was a 'judi- 
cial' proceeding to all intents and purposes." But here 
Judge Gibson gives a different opinion. He says : " The 
sentence of excision, as it has been called, was nothing 
else than an ordinance of dissolution." This, however, 
was an apology too flimpsy even for the Reformers. They 
know, and so does every one acquainted with Presbyteri- 
anism, that to dissolve and excind are Very different things. 
A Synod may dissolve a Presbytery, or the General As- 
sembly may dissolve a Synod. But the dissolution never 
throws the members out of the church. It only changes 
their Presbyterial or Synodical relation. P^xcision, how- 
ever, is a turning out, or a cutting off from the church* 
It is excommunication to all intents and purposes. 

The Synods were cut off. Judge Gibson says it was- 
** a legislative act." Judge Rogers says it was " a judi* 
eial proceeding ." Well, the thing was done. The enor- 
mity of the act was great, call it by what name you may* 



200 

But Judge Gibson, whose opinion strongly favored the Re- 
formers, was very unwilling that the excision should be call- 
ed a judicial act. H is language is : "Now, had the excinded 
Synods been cut off by judicial sentence, without hearing 
or notice, the act would have been contrary to the car- 
dinal principles of natural justice, and consequently void. 
But, though it was at first resolved to proceed judicially, 
the measure was abandoned ; probably because it came to 
be perceived that the Synods had committed no offence." 

Behold the potency of a name or word ! Hundreds of 
ministers and thousands of members •' were treated as 
enemies and offenders against the rules" of the church, 
and were cut off. Now, according to Judge Gibson, if 
you call the proceeding " legislative" all is well. But 
call it "judicial " and the act is " contrary to the cardi- 
nal principles of natural justice. " 

But the Judge is of opinion that they were not proceed- 
ed against judically^ as at first proposed, " because it 
came to be perceived that the Synods had committed no 
offence." But this is an explanation the Reformers would 
not receive. The plan of a fair and legal trial was aban- 
doned because it was thought to be " tedious and trouble- 
some." 

In reference to the two organizations, when the Assem- 
bly divided, Judge Gibson gave a different opinion from 
the decision under Judge Rogers. The great question 
before the jury was, which body organized according to 
the established order ? The decision under Judge Rogers- 
was that the Constitutional Assembly was the true Gen- 
eral Assembly. Judge Gibson w 7 as of a different opinion. 
Among other things, he objected to the Constitutional As- 
sembly's organization, because that the old moderator, - 
though refusing to do his duty, was removed. He says : 
" But he was not removeable by them, because he had not 
derived his office from them : nor was he answerable to 
them for the use of his power. He was not their modera- 
tor. lie was the mechanical instrument of their organi- 
zation ; and till that was accomplished they were subject 
to his rule — not he to theirs." 

The necessity for such a procedure had not before been 
forced upon the Assembly. But that Judge Gibson's opin- 



201 

ion, in reference to the duties and powers of a presiding 
officer, is not the opinion of deliberative bodies, is evident 
not oniy from the measures of the Constitutional Assem- 
bly in its organization, but from the action of Congress 
since, in a similar case as mentioned in the 20th Chapter 
of this history. And would Judge Gibson say, that the 
28th Congress was not constitutionally organized, because, 
on motion of Mr. Adams, the presiding officer was remov- 
ed and another put in his place 1 

There were many other points in the opinion of the 
Judge adverse to the claims of the Constitutional party. 
They can be seen in the opinion, in McElroy's .Report, 
pp. 620—628. 

The order for a new trial, as already stated, was grant- 
ed. But before the trial came on, the Constitutional party 
instructed their counsel to withdraw the suit. 

The results, therefore, of these legal investigations in 
the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, are briefly these : 
Judge Rogers, in the first trial, charged the jury in favor 
of the Constitutional party, and the jury gave a verdict for 
them. The Reformers made a motion for a new trial — 
the order was granted, the Court in Bank giving an opin- 
ion adverse to the Constitutional party, by whom tke suit 
was then withdrawn. 

In another suit in Pennsylvania, which was brought up 
by appeal to the Supreme court, Judge Gibson took occa- 
sion to explain more fully the principles upon which, in the 
former suit, his opinion had been given in favor of the 
Reformers. This will be noticed in giving a satement of 
the case alluded to — the suit at York, in Pennsylvania. 

The church property at York was of some value. The 
Reform part of the church brought suit against the Consti- 
tutional party. It was tried before Judge H^ys, and the 
jury gave a verdict for the Constitutional party. 

The opinion of Judge Gibson, in the former suit) had bee& 
a matter of great exultation to many of the leading Re- 
formers. And the party at York no doubt felt confident 
that if they could get the suit before Judge Gibson, he 
would reverse the decision of the lower court. But to the 
astonishment of the party, he affimed the decision, and 
gave the property to- the Constitutional party. Judge Gib- 



202 

son's opinion in this case may be seen in the Christian 
Observer of the 25th January, 1841. 

in this opinion the Judge takes occasion to explain some 
points in his former opinion that had been misapprehended 
by the Reformers. They had taken it for granted, that 
they were to be considered the only true Presbyterians, 
and their Assembly the only true Assembly — and that the 
New School had forfeited name, rights, property and all, 
But the Judge now corrects this misapprehension. He 
says that the order for a new trial, in the former case, was 
granted not because the Old School " were more Presby- 
terian than the New 1 ' — but because the Old School were at 
the time " the stronger party." 

According, then, to this opinion, if the New School in 
1831, 32, 33,34, or 36, when they were the stronger par- 
ty, had excinded the Old School and seized upon the funds, 
the property would justly be theirs. Such a decision, up- 
on such principles, to say the least of it, puts but little hon- 
or upon laws and constitutions. 

The Judge, however, says that if the New School had 
taken such a course it " would have loaded the New School 
party with such a weight of popular odium as would have 
sunk it." This to be sure was administering a keen rebuke 
to the Reformers 

The advocates of excision had contended that the mea- 
sure was a necessary expurgation, and that those who united 
with the excinded were seceders; and they supposed that 
Judge Gibson in the former instance had sanctioned that 
view of the case. But the Supreme Court, in the York 
church case, deny that they sanctioned such a view. They 
say that they "did not determine that the excision was ex- 
purgation and not division." They go further in charac-^ 
terizing the excision. They say : "Indeed the measure 
would seem to be as decisively revolutionary as would be 
an exclusion of particular states from the Federal Union 
for the adoption of an anti-republican form of govern- 
ment." 

In this final decision in the Supreme Court of Pennsyl- 
vania, the opinion was clearly expressed that the New Ba- 
sis acts were measures "not of expurgation but of divis- 
ion" — not of reform, but of revolution — not a rooting oiu 



203 

of Congregationalism, but a dismemberment of the Pres- 
byterian body" — not "merely a secession of particles 
leaving the original mass itself entire, but the original mass 
was split into two fragments*" And did the court say- 
that one party was truly Presbyterian and the other was 
.not? No. They consider the New School as much Pres- 
byterian as the Old School—- "each so like its fellow as to 
pass for its twin brother." They decided that the claims 
of the New School in the former suit were as strong as 
those of the Old School with one exception, and that 
accidental, viz. : that at the time of the revolution or 
excision, the Old School were the stronger party — having 
a majority of six in an Assembly of two hundred and 
fifty. 

There have been a few other suits, the results of which 
must be very briefly noticed. 

The Reform party, a minority in the Neshamony church, 
in the State of Pennsylvania, made an effort to obtain tha 
church property ; but they were unsuccessful. 

The Reform party, a minority in the Presbyterian 
church, in Florida, in the State of New York, claiming 
to be the only true Presbyterians, because of their adhe- 
sion to the New Basis, brought suit for the property. They 
were heard at length in the Chancery Court of that State. 
But their claims were defeated by the decision of the Vice 
Chancellor protecting the rights and property of the Con- 
stitutional party. 

Another suit of the same character was brought by the 
Reform party in the church of Somers, in the State of New 
York. They informed the Constitutional party, that they 
were the only true Presbyterians, and that they must have 
the church property — house, parsonage, &c. The consti* 
JutionaJ party, who were the majority, proposed that the 
two parties should use the church alternately, and that the 
question concerning property should be settled by com- 
promise. But the ixeform party would not compromise. 
The clerk of the congregation being on their side, they 
took possession of records, church, parsonage and all. 
Being secure, as they thought, they leased the parsonage 
to a tenant, and lay quietly "within the fortifications 
of the New Basis. 5 ' 



204 

The old trustees had no other alternative left, but to de- 
cide the matter by a law-suit. They commenced an ac- 
tion of ejectment for the parsonage. After a patient hear- 
ing, the jury gave a verdict for the Constitutional party 
without leaving their seats. 

I haye now briefly given the results of all the legal in- 
vestigations of which J have certain knowledge. Except 
the order for a new trial in one case, all the decisions go 
to vindicate the claims, rights and characters of the Con- 
stitutional party. 

And now, dear reader, I have gone through with all [ 
intended to present to you on the subject of the Pres- 
byterian controversy. In presenting this history of events, 
I was desirous that you should see how the matter was 
viewed by both parties. I have presented to you the re- 
sults of ecclesiastical and legal investigations. These re- 
sults have vindicated the rights and characters of the 
Constitutional party; and it is believed that public sen- 
timent approves the noble viadication- 



; -' 






Deacidified using the Bookkeeper proces s. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: June 2006 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



sra 



m 



IBf 



m 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

1 1ll II M II II HI' I i 

016 129 224 2 







WBBm 




